On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby
Via Teleconference
4:14 P.M. EDT
MODERATOR: Hey, everyone. Thanks for joining. Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get started with Q&A.
MR. KIRBY: Hey, everybody. Good afternoon. I know many of you are interested in a readout of the bilat with President Zelenskyy, and we’ll get all of that, but I just want to just kind of put a pin in sort of where we are here on Thursday afternoon.
Really, the meeting today is the culmination of, really, a full week for the President on the foreign policy front — as you all know, hosting the leaders of the Indo-Pacific Quad in Wilmington, in his hometown, to really talk about pressing issues, not just on the security land front, but economic, diplomatic, certainly with respect to development opportunities, and climate change all across the Indo-Pacific.
It was a really successful set of discussions, of course ending with all four gathering together to launch a global — or an international effort to get after the cancer challenge. So, terrific few days, couple of days there.
And then he went right to the U.N. General Assembly. You all saw his remarks, talking about the inflection point that that we are in again and how institutions like the United Nations can work together to really tackle transnational challenges.
He also talked about the acute nature of some of the conflicts that the United States and so many of our partners are dealing with now. Sudan, of course — trying to get both sides to the table to do what’s right for the Sudanese people and stop the violence, and the fact that there are other countries around the world that can also be helpful in leveraging that sort of an outcome.
Obviously, what’s going on in the Middle East. And you saw yesterday some intense diplomacy by our team to get multiple nations to come together and call for a 21-day ceasefire to try to bring the fighting between Israel and Lebanon to a halt so that diplomacy has a little bit of breathing space to actually work.
And then, of course, Ukraine. He had a chance to meet with President Zelenskyy yesterday in a short pull-aside and then had a more substantive discussion today. You saw all the announcements and the commitments that the President made to President Zelenskyy. A real surge is the way I would describe this, in terms of security assistance and support to Ukraine as they try to continue to reclaim territory and to succeed on the battlefield here in the coming months.
And the big thing about this — I mean, the biggest thing about that surge was drawing down the remaining funds that we have available for presidential drawdown authority, and then tasking DOD to then allocate that money over time so that all the way to the end of his term we will be spending everything we can to continue to support Ukraine. And there were some other additional capabilities announced, as I think you all saw.
Really good couple of days with President Zelenskyy here. He had a chance to present the broad contours of his victory plan to President Biden and to our national security team. And the President directed our team to work with his team over the next couple of weeks to dig into it a little bit more. And both presidents are planning to meet in Germany, when we head over there on the 12th of October. They’ll meet to kind of further flesh it out and see what, together, we can do to help President Zelenskyy really achieve this just and lasting peace that he’s trying to achieve.
So, again, I know there’s a lot of focus on the bilat today, and rightly so. He is meeting now with the Vice President, as you and I are talking, and I’m sure we’ll get you a readout of that discussion when it’s over. But it comes at the end of truly a full week of intense foreign diplomacy, a focus for the President, and real, tangible deliverables in just about every single venue, including on fentanyl, that are designed to make people’s lives better and designed, as the President said in his speech on Tuesday, to help us deal with this critical inflection point that we’re in.
So, anyway, I’ll stop there.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our first question will go to Steve with Reuters.
Q Could you just describe the broad contours of the —
MODERATOR: Steve, you should be able to unmute yourself.
We hear you now.
Q Can you hear me?
MODERATOR: Yep.
MR. KIRBY: Got you, bud.
Q I was just going to see if John could give us the broad contours of the Zelenskyy victory plan. And is it something that sounds doable to you?
MR. KIRBY: Hey, Steve. I think I’m going to let President Zelenskyy outline his plan. It’s his plan, and I don’t believe they have talked publicly about it too much in detail, so I think it would be inappropriate for me to do that.
I would just say, you know, broadly speaking, it contains a series of initiatives and steps and objectives that President Zelenskyy believes will be important, not only for helping him end the war that he’s in now, but prevent another one, and to be able to deter and defeat any future Russian aggression once the war is over.
And if you go back and you look at the President’s opening comments in the Oval, I mean, those were sort of the two prongs that the President also talked about as well. We got to — our immediate focus has got to be on what Ukraine needs now. And, of course, his package of announcements today and deliverables I think get at that to a fare-thee-well. But also, what we need to do to work for Ukraine’s long-term future and long-term security, and that would include, of course, you know, an eventual path to NATO, once they have worked through reforms that they have to make and once they have been able to put the war in the rearview mirror. But also looking after their long-term security needs. You know, we announced a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine, and they’ve secured several others with other countries to make sure that they have the capabilities over the long term.
I know that’s a long-winded answer, and I’m not trying to filibuster, but I do think it’s better if President Zelenskyy outlines his victory plan.
And as for your second — the second question you asked, you know, “Is it achievable,” well, that’s — you know, that’s what the two teams are going to be discussing here in coming days and weeks to see — to really kind of pick it apart and see where we can go together.
Q And if I could just add quickly, John: What happens with this effort now to secure a 21-day ceasefire in Lebanon?
MR. KIRBY: We’re having active discussions, as you might imagine, with our Israeli counterparts in particular about this. Last night, it was, I think, a very strident call by, you know, a dozen or so nations to try to seek a 21-day ceasefire, a temporary ceasefire that is designed, as I said, to give diplomacy some time and some space, a little bit of breathing room here to work, because we still believe that that’s the best solution here.
Where it goes from here is: Brett is still up in New York City, and he’s still having conversations with his counterparts, his Israeli counterparts, to see what the right next step is and if, how, and when that ceasefire can get moving.
I would just add one more thing, because I understand — I mean, you didn’t ask it this way, but I’m sure somebody will. You know, you’ve seen President — sorry, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, and we’ve seen them as well. I would just make a couple of points here.
Number one, we still believe an all-out war is not the best way to get people back in their homes. If that’s the goal, an all-out war we don’t believe is the right way to do that.
Number two, there was a lot of care and effort put into that statement. As you can see from it, it wasn’t just the United States; several other nations joined us. That took diplomacy as well. That took some elbow grease to work that statement with so many other countries, including talking to our interlocutors in Lebanon and in Israel. And we wouldn’t have made that statement, we wouldn’t have worked on that if we didn’t have reason to believe that the conversations that we were having with the Israelis in particular were supportive of the goal there.
And the last thing I’ll say, and I kind of already said it, is: The conversations continue. The discussions are ongoing. Even as you and I are talking, again, Brett McGurk, Amos, they’re still up there seeing what they can do to get this moving forward.
So, again, seen his comments. Somebody is going to ask me about it; I know that. All I can tell you is those conversations with our Israeli friends happened yesterday, before the statement went out, and they’re happening today.
Q Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Yes, sir.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Andrea Mitchell.
Q Hi. Thank you very much. Thanks, Hannah. Thanks, John. So, you’re right, I do want to ask you about the 21 days, because there’s such a fundamental disagreement. The Prime Minister reasserted his disagreement when he landed here in the U.S. just a couple of hours ago and said that they were going to use all their force and achieve their objectives.
So do you have a better understanding of what their objectives are militarily, beyond getting people back in their homes? Because you have clearly made the point, as the Secretary made this morning, that to create hostilities in the area is not going to help get people back in their homes. Is it to abide by the U.N. resolution? Is it to create a buffer zone? How far to push them back? What is your goal? And what is your best understanding with all these conversations of what their goal is?
MR. KIRBY: Well, I mean, I would point you to what they’ve been saying themselves. I mean, Prime Minister Netanyahu himself said that one of his principal objectives is getting people back home. And there’s a lot of — there’s a lot of public opinion in Israel about that exact issue, about the desire to go back home, up in the north. And —
Q No, I meant the military objective. What does he —
MR. KIRBY: I know that, but —
Q What does he think can — okay.
MR. KIRBY: I know that, Andrea. But he himself said that that was his objective: to get people back home, to stabilize the situation so that people would feel comfortable doing that.
Now, he has also said, and we have no reason to doubt, that he wants to continue to eliminate the very legitimate, lethal threats that Hezbollah poses to Israel. I mean, just yesterday they launched a ballistic missile at Tel Aviv.
So, he and his cabinet and the Israeli people have every right to want to thwart that threat, that challenge to their peace and security, their lives and their livelihoods. So I would suspect that from a military perspective, that’s also weighing into their calculation.
But, you know, I can’t answer the question any better than I did with Steve. Seen his comments, heard them, but all I can tell you is that we wouldn’t have worked on that statement the way we did, we wouldn’t have issued it when and how we did if it wasn’t supported by the conversations that we were having with top Israeli officials yesterday, and those conversations continue today.
Q Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Alex Marquardt. One second. Where did you go, Alex?
Okay, we see — oh, he is back.
Q Hi, you got me?
MODERATOR: Yes.
Q Thanks, guys. John, just want to ask you a little bit more on that. So we heard from Karine earlier that this was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side. And last night, your colleagues said pretty definitive things like “this is an important breakthrough,” “when the governments agree.” So it sounds like there was an expectation that this would happen, and then we see Netanyahu come out and say, “We continue to hit Hezbollah with all our might.” That doesn’t sound like a reversal or a dismissal to you from the Israeli side?
MR. KIRBY: I think you ought to ask that question to Prime Minister Netanyahu. What I can tell you is: The discussions we had last night we had every reason to believe were sincere. And I will tell you, I’ve communicated with Brett this morning, and he’s having those discussions today, and he feels, again, that the Israeli side are willing to have those talks. So that’s where we are.
Q But do you think there’s a difference in — you both agree that it’ll take a diplomatic solution to get people back into their homes, but do you think there’s a disagreement about how to get there, in that they believe it’s military pressure and you guys are arguing, no, it’ll take a pause?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I’m not going to get into our back-and-forth here in a public setting, Alex, and I’m certainly not going to speak for what they believe or don’t believe.
I think I’ve kind of dealt with the issue of the discussions we had yesterday and the ones we’re having today.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Haley with Scripps.
Q Hey. Thanks for doing this. You know, given the strong rejection from Netanyahu on this temporary ceasefire and the indications that one of the hopes was that diplomatic space to continue the efforts for a ceasefire in Gaza, I’m curious how the recent language from the Israelis is impacting those efforts and if there has been any further movement in the past few days on that first ceasefire and hostage release. Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: I wish I could tell you that we had some kind of breakthrough to speak to. We don’t, with respect to the ceasefire in Gaza. But I also would add that we are still very much interested in trying to see if it can’t be moved forward. And nothing has slackened about our desire to see if there is room for another go at this.
But the team is still focused on it. We still want to see it put in place. And nobody has turned the page on it and said, “Well, that’s it. We’re done. We’re not interested in trying to find a ceasefire that can get the hostages home.”
So, our team here at the National Security Council, and I’m sure the State Department as well, is still trying to work this over to see if there’s a path forward.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Zeke with AP.
Q Hey, John. I just want to take one more stab at this. What changed between last night, when the senior administration officials who briefed were calling it a breakthrough, and this morning? Were you and was the President surprised or upset by the Prime Minister’s comments this morning, rejecting that deal? Or was that expected? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: I would say a couple of things. It’s not clear to us that, from a practical perspective, that there isn’t cause for us to continue to have these conversations with the Israelis.
If something has changed, you’d have to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu about what that something is. What I can tell you is we’re still talking to the Israelis today, as we were yesterday. And I’ll leave it at that.
And I’m not going to characterize the President’s reaction one way or the other. His main goal is to make sure that we find a diplomatic path here to deescalate along that Blue Line and that we avoid an all-out war and escalation, not only there but elsewhere in the region. And almost everything he’s been doing since the 7th of October has been designed to achieve that outcome.
And so, that’s where his focus is, on trying to prevent this thing from escalating more than it already has. And his tasking to the team in recent days is to keep working at that goal, keep trying to see what we can do to give diplomacy a fighting chance, and that’s what he really wants.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Nick with PBS.
Q Hey, John. One last attempt at the same topic, but also trying to move it forward. Do you believe that Netanyahu has backtracked from anything he said before last night? Or do you believe that — and/or do you believe that he’s balancing competing interests? You mentioned there’s a lot of public opinion in Israel. Both the right and some on the left actually criticized the announcement on the call for a ceasefire deal.
And again, trying to push this forward, is there a message that you would like to hear from Netanyahu tomorrow, during the UNGA speech, that may indicate to the U.S., to the world, frankly, to Hezbollah itself, to Nasrallah that would provide some kind of (inaudible) moving forward? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, look, I appreciate the seventh or eighth attempt here. I can’t speak for Prime Minister Netanyahu. I can’t answer the question why he said what he said. And I certainly can’t begin to speculate about what considerations went into that statement, whether they were political or operational or otherwise. Those are questions that he needs to be asked and should be given the opportunity to answer.
What I can tell you is: That statement we worked on last night wasn’t just drawn up in a vacuum. It was done after careful consultation, not only with the countries that signed on to it, but Israel itself. And we had every reason to believe that in the drafting of it and in the delivery of it, that the Israelis were fully informed and fully aware of every word in it. And we wouldn’t have done it, as I said, if we didn’t believe that it would be received with the seriousness with which it was composed.
And the discussions that we have had, or that we had yesterday with our Israeli counterparts, are happening still today. So, what prompted the Prime Minister’s comments? Only he can say. What prompted our desire to get that statement written and out the door was an earnest desire to see diplomacy having a chance here to deescalate.
Q And the question about the UNGA speech and message that you want to hear from Netanyahu tomorrow?
MR. KIRBY: Look, we’re not in the habit of providing speechwriting advice to foreign leaders. The Prime Minister will speak for himself, and he’ll speak for the Israeli people in the way he sees fit, the same way that President Biden did on Tuesday.
So, we’ll obviously be listening to hear what he has to say, of course, with great interest, as you will. We know that the Prime Minister knows that the people of Israel have no stronger supporter than Joe Biden, not only as President of the United States, but over the course of a long career.
And even though he and Prime Minister Netanyahu don’t see eye-to-eye on every issue, and that is clear, they absolutely share one overarching goal, and that is the preservation and the safety and security of the State of Israel. That will never change. We may disagree at times on how to achieve that goal, but on the things — well, a lot of things matter, but on that very big thing that matters, they certainly see eye-to-eye.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Michael with the New York Times.
Q Hey, John. I will avoid becoming the ninth effort to — person to press you on (inaudible), though I think you’re still (inaudible) basic question, which is: What did Netanyahu tell the United States last night? And did he mislead you guys?
But let’s go to an easier question on Ukraine, which is: You know, is the President going — is there anybody in the United States government and the national security team that thinks that — or that doesn’t think that Ukraine and Zelenskyy will ultimately have to come to some sort of acceptance of some sort of territorial, you know, giveaway to resolve this war?
And is the President comfortable leaving office in a few months, you know, kind of knowing that war is going to continue on in this stalemate that won’t — you know, that doesn’t have a real path towards resolution, in part because Zelenskyy doesn’t want to confront that possibility?
MR. KIRBY: Of course the President would like to see this war ended, Michael. I mean, he’d like to see it ended today, and we all know that it could if Putin got the hell out of Ukraine. But of course, that doesn’t appear to be in the offing.
So, President Biden would very much like to see the war ended as soon as possible, given the unlikelihood of that eventuality. And that’s why we’re doing everything we can to make sure they can prevail on the battlefield so that if and when President Zelenskyy decides he wants to enter into some sort of negotiated settlement, that he can do so from a position of strength.
And, you know, to your first question, which I may be butchering it back to you, so if I don’t get it right, you tell me if I’m wrong. But the way I interpreted it was: Does anybody think here at the NSC that there’s no other way for this to end without him trading territory? Is that kind of where you were — is that what you meant?
Q Yeah, essentially. Right. I mean, essentially, in the question —
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, look — I mean, that’s going to be up to him. And I would tell you we’re not sitting around with maps of Ukraine and markers and coming up with, you know, alternative scenarios here, or, “Gee, maybe we could convince Zelenskyy to trade this for that.” We’re not involved in that kind of a game here. We are — when we’re sitting there looking at the map of Ukraine, it’s about trying to understand the battlefield as it is now and trying to get ahead of where it’s going to go, and making sure that Ukraine has what it needs to be successful on that battlefield.
But as I said many, many times, if and when and how this war ends, it’s got to be in a way that President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people can accept. He gets to decide the conditions. He gets to decide the circumstances. And if there’s trade space, he gets to decide what that trade space is. He’s not getting direction from the United States and the administration in one way or another when it comes to that.
And I would just tell you that — I can’t speak for the innermost thoughts of every single policy analyst here at the National Security Council, but I can tell you that Jake is not putting them to task, getting them to think through what a negotiation could look like in terms of geography. That’s just not where our heads are. Everybody here that’s working this problem set is really trying to do the two things that the President said very clearly in his pool spray.
And those two items, you know, I do want to draw you back to them as much as I can, because it wasn’t by accident that he listed two priorities: one, that they got what they need now and in the months ahead, and that every dollar we can spend before the end of his term, by God, we’re going to spend it. And number two: that we are setting, as best we can, all the conditions for the future long-term security of Ukraine so that they can not only deter any future Russian aggression once the war ends, but defeat it, if they have to face it. And that, of course, means obviously working with them on the reforms to eventually see a path to NATO, but also, more organically, make sure that they have a robust defense industrial base with the ability to manufacture and to procure the kinds of defense articles that they’ll need to defend themselves over the long term.
Q That’s great. Let me just follow up one really quick way. I guess what I’m trying to get at with the question of territory is that there are places in the world where the U.S. does press — I mean, Israel is a perfect example. The U.S. has been long on record pressing for a two-state solution that would ultimately require both sides to compromise on territory in the interest of long-term security.
And I guess the question is: After two years of war that has largely stalemated, why isn’t the U.S. — I mean, obviously it’ll be up to Ukraine to make the final decision, but why isn’t the U.S. pressing for some sort of consideration that would bring the war to an end?
MR. KIRBY: Because we believe, as we’ve said from the outset — we believe that, unlike the two-state solution, Mike, which is not — in my view, not an appropriate analogy, this was a sovereign nation with internationally recognized boundaries that was invaded by its neighbor aggressively, and remains invaded by its neighbor. That is a vastly different scenario.
And from the beginning, from the moment he stepped off and marched on to Kyiv, we were saying we want to see those internationally recognized boundaries fully respected and restored. That is Ukraine, all of Ukraine, including Crimea. It belongs to Ukraine. We want to see that outcome.
So I think quick — honestly, we have been very clear about geography, and that hasn’t changed. Now, if there’s some trade space to be had there, that’s got to be up to President Zelenskyy. But as far as President Biden and the United States is concerned, Ukraine is Ukraine. All of Ukraine. And the internationally recognized borders need to be respected by everybody, most especially Russia.
Q Thanks. Appreciate it.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Barak with Axios.
Q Hey, John. Just a very short clarification. I just want to see that I understand. You said that you would not have published the statement about the ceasefire if you did not understand from the Israelis that they’re on board. Did I understand this correctly? Is this what you said?
MR. KIRBY: I didn’t say it in exactly those words, but I’m not going to disagree with your assessment of it.
Q Thank you.
MODERATOR: Awesome. Thank you, everyone. That’s all the time we have for today. As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, send a note to the distro, and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can. Thank you.
4:46 P.M. EDT
