Preview of President Biden’s Travel to France – United States Department of State

THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.

MODERATOR:  Hello, everyone.  Welcome to the Foreign Press Center.  My name is Jake, one of the media relations officers here at the Foreign Press Center.  The purpose of today’s briefing is to provide a preview of President Biden’s upcoming travel to France.  As a reminder, the briefing is on the record, and a recording of the transcript will be available later today on fpc.state.gov.

It is my pleasure to introduce our briefer today, John Kirby, the National Security Council coordinator for strategic communication.  He will start with opening remarks and then open for questions.  As a reminder, if you have a question, please identify yourself with your name, your country, and your outlet.

And over to Mr. Kirby.

MR KIRBY:  Sorry I’m late, everybody.  I apologize for that.  How’s everybody doing today?  All right?  Yeah?  Everybody breathing?  You’re alive?  What’s that?

QUESTION:  (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY:  Yeah, thanks for reminding me.  What’s that?  Yeah.  I didn’t bring any, but if you have some, I’m happy to – all right.

Good afternoon, everybody.  It is great to be back here at the Foreign Press Center.  I do enjoy very much the opportunity to come back here, and as was noted, I am here to give you just a preview of the President’s travel this week to France.  He’ll leave D.C. tomorrow evening, arriving in France on Wednesday morning, and he’s going specifically for two reasons: one, of course, to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the historic D-Day operation, Operation Overlord, which led eventually to the defeat of Nazi Germany.  That operation not only freed France’s western region during the Second World War but of course set the course for the liberation of the rest of the European continent.  And it led, quite frankly, to our current world order, this rules-based world order that we talk about that has made us all safer and more secure.

Now, while in Normandy, the President will get a chance to meet and speak with veterans from World War II, including men who participated in Operation Overlord.  He’ll be able to deliver remarks about the continued impact of their contributions.  American and Allied forces exhibited remarkable bravery on D-Day and throughout the war, and their bold defense upheld freedom and democracy everywhere.  That war showed the world the value of strong alliances and partnerships, which is a lesson that continues to resonate strongly today, both in Europe and, quite frankly, well beyond Europe.

This visit comes, of course, at an important moment today, as Ukraine continues to face down Russian threats in its east and, quite frankly, to the north, and we are working to address the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East.  President Biden has made revitalizing our relationships a key priority, recognizing that we are stronger when we act together and that today’s challenges require global perspectives, global approaches, global responses, and multilateral effort and cooperation.

To that end, while in France, President Biden will also participate in an official state visit with President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron.  France is an important U.S. partner.  In fact, France is our oldest ally, and this visit will underscore continued U.S.-French leadership on a range of consequential global issues.  During their bilateral meeting, the presidents will discuss priorities like continuing to support Ukraine as it defends itself; the need for a free and open, prosperous Indo-Pacific region; addressing the crisis in the Middle East, of course; and efforts to combat climate change.

So as we look for what the deliverables will be – and I won’t get – I won’t get ahead of the President, but I think you can – you’ll – you can anticipate certain deliverables that get at those issues, that underscore the power and the importance of the transatlantic relationship, that deepen our Indo-Pacific cooperation – not just from a security perspective, from an economic and diplomatic perspective as well – that increase clean energy investments and improve and increase nuclear energy capacity, and that highlight U.S.-French cooperation to make sure that the Summer Olympics are safe and secure and sustainable and that they can demonstrate truly the very best in athletic endeavor.

The President looks forward to these engagements this week and to advancing our cooperation on all these and some other pressing issues as well.  And with that, I’m happy to take some questions.  Front row there.

QUESTION:  Thank you for taking – Dmytro Anopchenko, Ukrainian correspondent here.  John, thank you for taking the questions, and happy birthday, by the way.  It’s already been announcement – announced that President Zelenskyy will be visiting, and he already got the meeting with President Macron.  Do you have anything for us about the possible meeting between President Biden and President Zelenskyy, and if yes, if it’s already on the schedule, what might be the main message?

MR KIRBY:  I don’t have anything on the President’s schedule specifically to speak to beyond what I’ve laid out here in the opening statement.  You have seen in the past, however, when those two leaders are together in the same fora, they often do find an opportunity to meet.  But I just don’t have anything on the schedule today to speak to.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION:  Yes, good afternoon.  I’m Keely Sullivan for – my country’s France.  I’m with France 2.  Also, happy birthday.

MR KIRBY:  You don’t speak with a French accent.

QUESTION:  I don’t speak with a French accent, that’s the rub.  I wanted to ask if the President will also be planning to offer any media availability, if not for the anniversary, but then for the state visit.

MR KIRBY:  Media availability?  You mean like a press conference?

QUESTION:  Yes, perhaps a joint press conference or perhaps a moment, yeah, or two.

MR KIRBY:  There’s no joint press conference on the schedule in Paris, and in Normandy, his public events will be the speech at the cemetery on the 6th and then he’ll be going to Point Du Hoc the next day on the 7th to deliver remarks there.  Those’ll be largely focused on the importance of democracy and fighting for democracy.

QUESTION:  Okay.  And any opportunity for taking questions during those events?

MR KIRBY:  There’s no press availability baked into this schedule.  It’s a very short trip, just a few days, and again, the focus is really going to be on – well, obviously the bilateral relationship with France, but also on honoring and commemorating the bravery of all those who served in the operation that – of D-Day.

Yeah, in the back.  Go ahead.  Yeah.  Yeah.  There you go.  I’ll – I’ll go around.  I’ll pick a side and we’ll go back and forth, okay?

QUESTION:  Happy birthday.  I know what it feels like to be on the other side of 50.  (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY:  I am well beyond the other side of 50.

QUESTION:  I know, I checked your bio.  (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Marcin Wrona, TVN Poland.  So John, there is a new, increased wave of hybrid attacks on Poland and other NATO countries.  A few of Polish soldiers were injured recently on the border with Belarus by migrants pushing towards NATO countries or being pushed towards NATO countries by Belarus and Russia.  There are also cyber attacks.  Polish Press Agency, which is a state agency, was attacked recently, and Polish foreign minister said today that Poland is the target and victim of one of the biggest hybrid attacks in decades.  And he talked about arson, spying, cyber attacks.  So my question is: When would we consider those hybrid attacks as crossing the line, when this hybrid warfare would be considered as an attack on NATO? 

MR KIRBY:  That would be a decision for NATO and the Allies to decide.  It certainly wouldn’t be a unilateral decision by the United States.  I mean, we’re watching these issues with great concern.  And certainly, I think you can imagine we’re staying in very close touch with our Polish allies and partners and making sure that they have what they need.  

But as for a decision about Article 5, I mean, that’s something that the Alliance does as an Alliance and together, and I don’t want to speak for the secretary general; that wouldn’t be my place.  But I don’t believe there’s an active discussion right now in front of Allies to start talking about this in a context of Article 5. 

QUESTION:  (Off-mike.) 

MR KIRBY:  I mean, we’re staying – as I said, we’re staying in touch with our Polish counterparts, as you would think we would, of course, and monitoring as best we can.

Yeah, ma’am, in the middle there.  Yeah. 

QUESTION:  Beatriz Pascual with EFE, Spanish news agency.  (Inaudible) said that one of the topics between Macron and Biden is going to be the long-term aid to Ukraine.  So my question is: Are they planning to discuss the U.S. proposal to the G7 about using the profits from Russian assets to secure a loan to Ukraine?  And if you could elaborate a little bit on this proposal, why the U.S. is proposing this to the G7, and how it will address Ukrainian financial needs. 

MR KIRBY:  I don’t want to get too far ahead of the discussions.  But as you – I’m sure you’ve heard our Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen talk about this, we believe that this is an idea – about using frozen assets is an idea that should be explored as a way of holding Russia further accountable for what they’ve done to Ukraine, as well as to think about long-term reconstruction needs in Ukraine.  Because there’s going to be – there’s going to have to be a lot of resources and a lot of time spent in rebuilding the damage that Russia has done inside Ukraine. 

And so this is an idea we believe holds promise.  This is an idea we have consulted with our European allies on, certainly at the ministerial level.  Again, I don’t want to get too specific in the President’s agenda items with President Macron, but I do think it’s safe to assume that they will talk about what’s going on in Ukraine today, and they will talk about what the future for Ukraine should look like going forward.  Because this is something – and again, I can’t speak for President Macron, but he has spoken to it himself very eloquently – it’s a concern of his as well.  

So I do think the issue will come up in the context of the bilateral discussions.  Now exactly what will be said by either principal, I can’t predict right now.  But the President believes this is an idea that is worth exploring. 

QUESTION:  If I can follow up on that, some European countries have expressed concern that at the end, they will bear the brunt if Ukraine doesn’t pay or if it happens something with this loan.  What could you say to those concerns?  What is the U.S. saying to the concerns of the Europeans? 

MR KIRBY:  Well, that’s – but that’s all part of the conversations that we’re having.  In fact, as Secretary Yellen has said in the past, I mean, we can’t do this unilaterally.  The United States can’t – because it is a truly international effort where these assets are frozen.   So we have to have the cooperation and the support particularly of our European Union allies, and that’s why the discussions we’re having are in that context.  We will need some kind of consensus to be able to explore this going forward. 

In the back.  Yes, sir.  In the glasses there.  Yeah, you. 

QUESTION:  Yeah.  I’m —

MR KIRBY:  You’ve got to use the mike there, bud. 

QUESTION:  Oh. 

MR KIRBY:  There you go. 

QUESTION:  Yes.  Daniele Compatangelo for La7, Italian news network.  So I have this question.  So, like, U.S., France, the UK, and other European states have decided that their weapons can be used on Russian territories.  And you just talk about on an answer on another question about the Article 5, hypothetically, if something happen.  So at this point, if states like Italy or Spain that don’t agree on using their weapons at this time, if something happen, what is the plan?  Should those states say, hey, we said no, so we don’t want to do anything regarding Article 5 in case Russia will retaliate? 

MR KIRBY:  What something are you talking about?  What hypothetical something are you referring to? 

QUESTION:  Well, I’m asking you, does – there is a plan because, like, those weapons, like, from the United States can be used on Russian territories.  What happen if Russia decide to retaliate towards the United States or Europe for using those weapons? 

MR KIRBY:  So let’s put this in context here before we start engaging in what-ifs.  Let’s put it in context.  What the President has allowed is the limited use of U.S.-supplied – some U.S.-supplied weapons to be used as counterfire, particularly right now in the area around Kharkiv, where the Russians continue to try to pound the city and are trying to break through the Ukrainian first line of defense.  And if they have – if they know of a Russian military unit just across a border that they are about to become under attack from, then it’s common sense to allow them to use U.S.-supplied weapons to be able to counter that threat to defend themselves.  It’s targeted and it’s limited in its scope.  

That’s the guidance that was given to Ukraine, and that’s the guidance that we’re following.  That’s what President Biden decided.  There’s been no change, for instance, to our policy about the ATACMS, the long-range, long strike – long-range strike missile.  We don’t – we have not lifted our concerns of – about that weapon being used inside Russian soil.  But it is really – we’re talking about just over the border in a limited way as counterfire, the ability to prevent an imminent attack on you and your forces.  That’s what this is.  And I think it’s important for people to understand that’s what we’re talking about, and it’s just common military sense. 

Stopping from that and putting that aside a minute, as the President has said, we take our Article 5 commitments very, very seriously.  As a matter of fact, this particular President has added 20,000 more American troops on the European continent and kept them there for the last couple of years.  So now we’re up around 100,000 American troops on the European continent for the first time in a long time, and now we have a process of being able to keep them there because he takes those Article 5 commitments so seriously, particularly to the eastern flank of NATO. 

We have been very clear to our Allies and we have been very clear to Mr. Putin that we take those commitments, again, seriously.  An attack on a NATO Ally is considered an attack on all.  And we will be postured and prepared to meet our Article 5 commitments, should it come to that. 

QUESTION:  And do a quick follow-up.  So if Putin, Mr. Putin, decide to retaliate because those weapons are using on the Russian territory, even if it’s on the border, what happen to state like Italy or Spain or other country that said, no, we don’t want our weapons to be used? 

MR KIRBY:  That’s their choice.  They get to make those decisions, just like we made those decisions about U.S. – we’re in no position to decide for another country how the weapons that they provide Ukraine can be used or not used.  We have certain requirements on ours, and I suspect that they would, too.  And that’s obviously their decision to make.

One of the things – if you’ll allow me for a second, the most important thing at stake right now is, of course, Ukraine, the idea of Ukraine as a country, their territorial integrity, the lives and livelihoods of their people.  But you know what the other thing that’s at stake right now is the UN Charter.  It’s the very idea of sovereignty and what does that mean.  

And throughout the beginning of this conflict, the United States has led a coalition now of more than 50 countries – not just NATO, countries around the world, Japan, South Korea – that have on their own decided that they’re going to support Ukraine and on their own decided how they’re going to support Ukraine.  Some do it with lethal capabilities, some with nonlethal capabilities; some with economic assistance only, some with a combination of economic and security assistance.  Every one of those 50-plus nations gets to decide for themselves what they’re going to do, how they’re going to do it, and on what timeline because – you know what? – they’re sovereign nations, the whole idea of sovereignty.  

And so it would be – it would be hypocritical to the extreme if the United States was bullying our allies and partners about what decisions they’re making with respect to how they support Ukraine.  We’re grateful for every nation in this coalition that is stepping up to do something, whatever that something is.  And we absolutely respect their right to determine how their support is used. 

QUESTION:  Thank you. 

MR KIRBY:  Over here, yeah, in the – you in the second row there, yeah. 

QUESTION:  Appreciate it.  Dmitry. 

MR KIRBY:  I know who you are. 

QUESTION:  Dmitry Kirsanov for TASS.

MR KIRBY:  Yeah. 

QUESTION:  I wanted to shift gears slightly and ask about the D-Day commemoration events that you had briefly touched upon in your opening remarks.  As you know well, France made about-face and rescinded an invitation it initially sent to Russia to attend those events.  A, did the United States have anything to do with this decision, with this about-face?  And B, what do you think about it? 

MR KIRBY:  As far as I know, this was a decision made by the French Government.  And we let them speak to it, respect that decision. 

QUESTION:  And do you have any comment about that?  

MR KIRBY:  Again, this was a French decision to make.  We respect that, and the President’s looking forward to going to observe and to recognize and commemorate the bravery and the skill that took place not just by U.S. forces but by Allied forces on D-Day.  

QUESTION:  And a very brief follow-up, answering a question from my colleague about using Western weapons.  You said particularly around Kharkiv.  As far as I remember, it was – at least several days ago – it was just in this area.  It is getting further now? 

MR KIRBY:  There’s no change to the guidance, as expressed last week.  It’s – right now, it’s largely to be used in the area around Kharkiv. 

QUESTION:  Thanks. 

MR KIRBY:  Yeah.  Ma’am, you, right there.  

QUESTION:  Happy birthday, again.  Mine is on Thursday, so I — 

MR KIRBY:  Well, happy birthday in advance to you.  (Laughter.) 

QUESTION:  You said that Mr. Biden is meeting Macron in – during his visit.  We know – excuse me?  My name is Jihan.  I work for The National.  Thank you.  We’ve heard that France has shown readiness to recognize a Palestinian state.  Is this a topic that’s going to come up during the meeting, given what we know about the U.S. position on this issue? 

MR KIRBY:  Again, I don’t – I can’t get ahead – too far ahead of the discussion that hasn’t happened yet, so I can’t say for sure the issue of Palestinian statehood will come up or not.  I would just say that the President has remained – throughout his entire career in public service, but certainly as President of the United States – committed to a two-state solution.  He still believes that it’s possible.  He understands the difficulty.  He believes that it’s going to require leadership – strong leadership, courageous leadership – in the region to bring this about.  But here from Washington, he’s going to continue to show that leadership as well.  

That’s why we’re working so hard to see if we can’t still get normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia.  We believe that that would be a significant step in the right direction towards a two-state solution.  We do not – and he has said repeatedly, and I’m sure he will continue to make clear – we do not support unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood.  We believe that the best way to get to a two-state solution is direct negotiations between the two sides, and that means setting the conditions so that there can be direct negotiations between two sides.  And we just aren’t at that stage right now.  

QUESTION:  Thank you.  And as a brief follow-up, regarding the issue of the eradication of Hamas in Gaza, is there a softening of the position on where the U.S. stands, on whether simply militarily being able to prevent, as you have said, another October 7th attack is sufficient?  And do you think that’s going to satisfy the – I mean, the Israeli side, who have said quite the opposite, that they want to see eradicate – Hamas eradicated completely?  Does the White House think that this actually not an achievable goal?  And actually, frankly, a lot of experts have said that, that it is not an achievable goal. 

MR KIRBY:  There’s been no softening, and there’s been no change in our view.  We believe that the military instrument of national power can absolutely have a significant effect on defeating Hamas.  And as the President said on Friday, the Israeli military has had a significant impact, has had a major impact on Hamas’s military capability, to the degree where we assess they are not militarily capable of conducting an attack like they did on the 7th of October.

But we’ve also said that while you certainly can defeat them militarily, defeating an ideology is a whole different issue.  And we’ve learned that through our own bitter experience fighting groups like al-Qaida and ISIS.  We have – take a look at ISIS, for instance.  From a military capability, they are a shadow of their former selves.  Remember back in 2014, when they were storming across Iraq and Syria and – this big old caliphate.  Well, they don’t have any of that right now.  But that doesn’t mean they aren’t still a threat, and that doesn’t mean they aren’t still able to recruit and retain and plan and operate against us and against our allies and partners.  They absolutely still have that capability, and that’s borne out by the fact that we continue to conduct counterterrorism operations against ISIS targets around the – certainly around the region. 

And so we don’t – we still believe that when you’re talking about a terrorist group, particularly one that isn’t – is – in addition to being a terrorist group also has a military organizational component to it, that defeating them militarily, yes, you can do that.  Defeating their ideology is something that takes a lot longer time and is not going to be necessarily something that can be achieved just through military means.  

So nothing’s really changed about our approach on this.  And I got this question earlier today about this gap between us and the Israelis on this.  I mean, we – we continue to fundamentally assert that Israel has the right and responsibility to eliminate the threat that Hamas poses to the Israeli people, so that the 7th of October cannot happen again.  We also fundamentally and continually assert that the Israeli people should not have to live next to that right next to them, in Gaza.  We also continue to fundamentally assert that whatever post-conflict Gaza looks like, it can’t look like what it did on the 6th of October with Hamas in control.  It just can’t.

Now, can you achieve all those things through military pressure?  You can achieve – you can go a long way to that.  And so again, we’re going to continue to support Israel’s ability to defend itself.  We continue to provide them military capabilities.  But as the President said on Friday, they have done the job well enough now militarily to prevent another 7 October attack, and they’ve done well enough militarily that now, as the President said on Friday, it’s time to start a new stage here.  It’s time to get all those hostages out.  It’s time to get an enduring sense of calm, a ceasefire, that can lead to a permanent cessation of hostilities.  And it’s time to dramatically increase the humanitarian assistance that’s getting into Gaza.  And all those can be achieved with this proposal that the President talked about on Friday, an Israeli proposal which shows how strongly they’ve negotiated here and put forth in good faith an effort to try to get those hostages home.

Let me go over to the other side.  Ma’am in the blue shirt there.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  My name is Annett Meiritz for Handelsblatt, Germany.  So I would like to ask you more generally about the United States standing in the world.  I mean, that is – that is a topic whenever the President is traveling abroad; it’s an important topic.  So after the verdict on Donald Trump, we saw many reactions – from Russia, from China.  So we already saw, like, the world’s reacting on what’s happening here.  So my question is:  Do you consider the fact that there is a convicted criminal in this election campaign a national security risk?

MR KIRBY:  I am absolutely prohibited from talking about electoral politics.

QUESTION:  I know.  More broadly speaking.

MR KIRBY:  I am not going to touch that one.  That’s out of my scope at the National Security Council.  But I – if you wouldn’t mind, just to briefly address how you started the question with American leadership, everywhere the President goes – and I suspect it’ll happen in France, and it’ll happen in Italy as well for the G7 – everywhere he goes, leaders remind him how important they believe American leadership is on the world stage.  And they thank him for the work that he has done to restore a sense of American leadership on the world stage.  They thank him for the efforts that he has expended since he took office to revitalize our alliances and partnerships.

No other nation on the planet – none – enjoys the network of friends and allies that the United States enjoys.  And we don’t take any of them for granted.  In fact, we know – the President would be the first to tell you – that in many ways, our allies and partners can bring things to operations, they can bring things to diplomacy, they can bring things to the economic picture that the United States can’t even bring.  That’s what allies are – that’s why alliances work.  That’s why they’re important.

Five of our seven treaty alliances are in the Pacific.  The President has poured an awful lot of energy into improving those alliances – improving our relationship with the Philippines, working on the first-ever – the first-ever, just a couple of weeks ago – trilateral summit between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines.  Obviously, working to improve our bilateral relationships and our alliances with South Korea and Japan, but also working on a trilateral set of initiatives that can be enduring and sustainable well into the future between our three countries.  And that’s just in the Indo-Pacific, and that doesn’t include AUKUS, that doesn’t include elevating the stature of the Indo-Pacific Quad to the leader level.  In Europe, NATO is now two nations stronger and two nations bigger than it was when Joe Biden took office.  And as I said earlier in my answer, we have some 50-some-odd nations that the President has put together to help continue to support Ukraine.  Look at the Red Sea, the Middle East.  The Houthis decide they’re going to attack shipping, and President stood up a coalition now in the Red Sea of more than 20 nations that are doing what they can to try to defend shipping from the Houthi threats.

Everywhere you look, you can see examples of President Biden’s leadership on the world stage and how important he takes that.  And you know what?  It’s a humble leadership; it’s not an arrogant leadership.  Because as I said, he understands we are better and stronger when we act together with our allies and partners, rather than thinking we can just go it alone for every single problem set out there.  We don’t badger our allies and partners, we don’t pin the blame on them for things; we look for ways to try to work together with them and to try to improve our joint and combined capabilities.

Let me go back over here.  Yes, sir, in the glasses there.  Yeah.

QUESTION:  David Smith of The Guardian.  Just going back to your remarks about history at the beginning, what lessons do you think the President takes from D-Day?  What does it mean to him personally?  And also, does he have concerns about authoritarianism making a comeback in Europe?

MR KIRBY:  Well, the answer to your second question is yes, of course.  And I think we don’t have to look any further than Ukraine to see – to see the disastrous effects of an authoritarian leader, an aggressor who thinks he can get away with actually changing the boundaries, changing a nation’s borders by force, and challenging the very rules-based order that the World War II generation helped gift to us.

I don’t want to get too far ahead of the President’s remarks, but I can tell you first and foremost what D-Day means to him – and you’ll hear from him – is an example of incredible bravery.  I mean, and obviously, yes, by American forces, but by our allied forces as well.  As you know, it wasn’t just an American Operation Overlord.  And when you think about what those troops were up against on that, quote-unquote, “longest day,” it’s incredible what they were able to do.  And he first and foremost looks forward to having the opportunity to meet these veterans – not just from the U.S. but other countries – and talk to them, and thank them for what they and for what their families did then on that day, and since.  Because those who survived that battle and went on to fight, survived the war, came back and literally changed – certainly changed American society.  They went back, went to college, they ran businesses, they ran for office, they raised families, they really helped get America back on its foot after World War II.

And so number one, he wants to thank them for that, and recognize that bravery.  That’s the core reason to go.  But he also believes that this is an opportunity to showcase the importance of democracy, and democracy standing up to autocracy, and democracies and leaders of democracies stopping a bully in his tracks, and standing up to aggression – which, of course, we’re seeing play out very clearly in Ukraine.  

And then thirdly, if I might, you also hear him talk about the importance of alliances.  I won’t belabor the point, I’ve already said it several times here today, but I think you can expect the President to talk about how important allies and partners are and why it is important that those friendships aren’t taken for granted, they’re nurtured – they’ve got to be nurtured, they have to be continually developed, they have to be improved, they have to be worked on.  And again, as President of the United States, this is a man who takes that seriously and spends an awful lot of time on the phone and in meetings week after week with foreign leaders to develop those kinds of relationships.  He doesn’t – you can’t surge trust.  You have – if you’re going to pull on trust, it has to be trust that’s already been there because you’ve worked to build it and develop it.

QUESTION:  (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY:  You – first of all, I’ve already answered your question, but just – let’s just take it first – first of all, as I said, I can’t speak for the French Government, and — 

QUESTION:  (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY:  I won’t get ahead of the President’s speech.  He will talk about the importance of alliances and he will talk about the importance of multilateral efforts of democracies to stand up to autocracies. 

In the back here.  Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION:  Thank you, John.  Happy birthday to you.  I want to follow up on World War Two.  

MODERATOR:  (Off-mike.)

QUESTION:  I’m sorry?  

MODERATOR:  Introduce yourself.

QUESTION:  Liudmila Chernova from Sputnik News.  I would like to really follow up on the question on World War Two and Victory Day.  Would the United States welcome Russia at this event?  And also, what’s the current assessment of the United States, of the administration of the role of the Soviet Union in the — 

MR KIRBY:  I’ve already answered the – I’ve already answered the first question.  Russia’s not invited to the event, so that’s a – that’s a decision for the French Government to speak to.  Look, I mean, I’m not a historian, but I’m certainly aware and the President’s aware that the Soviet Union was an ally in World War Two and certainly deeply engaged in defeating Nazi Germany.  And we recognize that.  That’s history, that happened, and there’s no way – nor would there be any intention to distract from that, or to undermine it, or to ignore it.  And the Soviet people – the Russian people, specifically – in World War Two suffered deeply and greatly.  That, too, is a matter of record.  And again, nobody’s taking that away from that history.  

QUESTION:  But — 

MR KIRBY:  Today – today you have a man in charge of Russia, a single man – the only man that makes decisions in Russia – that has decided on his own, rather than to operate in concert with the international community, to operate against the international community, to try to change the borders of a neighboring state, a state which presented no threat to Russia, to change the borders by force.  Go take a look, please.  I’m sure you have, but do it again.  Go look at his speech on February 21st of 20 – 2022, right before he decided that he was going to invade Ukraine again, and look at the twisted, warped language and rhetoric and just completely ahistorical bent of Mr. Putin, and why he felt Ukraine presented a threat and why he thought it was okay to go in there and try to take it by force.  That’s the reality we’re dealing with now.  

Yes, Soviet – the Soviet Union was an ally in World War Two.  Yes, of course it was.  Today, there is no more Soviet Union, number one.  Two, there’s Russia, and today, Russia led by Vladimir Putin is literally trying to undermine the rules-based order that Soviet Russia – actually, Soviet – the Soviet Union actually had a role in World War Two in helping create.  He’s trying to undermine that and throw the UN Charter into the waste bin, and President Biden’s message this week and every other week is going to be that can’t stand.  You just can’t walk away from that kind of a threat.  Okay?  

QUESTION:  And just one — 

MR KIRBY:  I’m going to – I’m going to keep going around here.  Let’s go – yes, sir, you in the – with the blue lanyard there.

QUESTION:  That’s me?  

MR KIRBY:  Yep, that’s you.  

QUESTION:  Thank you so much, Admiral.  My name is Amr Hassan.  I work with Al Jazeera Mubasher.  And it seems like there are similarities or similar positions for both presidents and there are differences.  When we talk about the similarities, it seems like they both agree on the need to end the war in Gaza right now.  How can both presidents work on that item of the agenda when it comes to the Middle East to make sure that all parties included in this war can agree to the stop of it?  That’s one part of the question.  And the other part is they seem to be disagreeing on the role of ICC.  Here in the U.S. it was accused of false equivalence; in France it was hailed as fighting impunity.  Is that also a part of the conversation that’s going to take in France?  

MR KIRBY:  Again, I don’t want to get too far ahead of the conversation that hasn’t happened yet, so I don’t know the degree to which the ICC issue will actually come up.  Nothing’s changed about our view.  We don’t believe the ICC has jurisdiction here.  We don’t support, obviously, their involvement in this case, and we absolutely don’t accept what we believe their call for what we would consider wrongful arrest warrants.  And that’s not going to change.

And I’m sorry, and your second – your first question was just about the general approach to the end of the war in Gaza?  

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) to make sure that they come to an agreement about (inaudible)?  

MR KIRBY:  Well, I think the President looks forward to hearing what President Macron has to say and his views on exactly that.  I think – again, I can’t speak for President Macron.  I can only speak for President Biden.  But as he laid out Friday, he – as he said very eloquently in his speech, it’s time to begin to end this war.  And he believes – President Biden believes – that the proposal that went to Hamas last Thursday night is the best way forward to get to that outcome, because it provides a phased approach, but it provides for the hostages to get out, it provides for a ceasefire over a period of weeks, which could lead to a permanent cessation of hostilities.  

And then at the same time, he – President Biden – and his national security team is working hard with partners in the region about what post-conflict Gaza governance can look like.  We don’t have all the answers to that, but we’re working on that hard and certainly would welcome perspectives and inputs by President Macron and his thinking on this, because we know that he too has put a lot of effort into thinking about what’s going on in the Middle East and Gaza specifically, and what the post-conflict situation can look like.  

I can take just a couple more.  Yeah, in the back there, blue shirt there in the – on the aisle.

QUESTION:  Thank you very much, and happy birthday, Admiral Kirby.  And my name is Sangho Song, reporter from Yonhap News Agency, South Korea.  And as you might have noticed, there has been steady rise in tensions on the Korean Peninsula.  North Korea has launched a satellite and a lot of missiles recently, and it has sent a lot of balloons full of trash and other dirty stuff and incite them across the border into South Korea.  And South Korea is now taking steps to fully scrap the inter-Korean military accord that was signed in 2018 in order to reduce tensions and build cross-border trust.  So how do you see the recent security developments on the Korean Peninsula, and does that White House have any sort of serious concern regarding what’s happening on the Korean Peninsula?  

And I’m also wondering – can you give us any clarity about the timing of the trilateral summit between South Korea, the United States, and Japan?  Is there any possibility that the summit could take place on the margins of the NATO Summit next month?  Thank you. 

MR KIRBY:  Yeah, thanks.  On that, on the second question, I’m not in a position to speak to the NATO Summit agenda too much right now.  I’m sure I’ll be back here in July to talk to you a little bit more about the NATO Summit, but I don’t have – we haven’t fleshed out all the particulars of the agenda, so I can’t confirm whether there’ll be a leaders summit trilaterally. 

On your first question, of course we’re watching the increasing tensions with great concern.  And I’ll just say two things.  Number one, as I said earlier, we have a treaty alliance with the Republic of Korea.  It’s an alliance we take seriously.  We continue to make sure that we, the United States, are best postured to support our Korean allies, and that includes across the realm of national power but certainly in terms of military capability, and we’ll continue to do that.  I don’t have any posture changes to speak to today, but it is absolutely something that we’re in constant communication with our South Korean allies on.  

And number two, the offer to sit down with the North Koreans without preconditions stands.  We have continued to make that clear that we would be willing to sit down with the DPRK, without preconditions, to talk about the denuclearization of the peninsula.  And to date, Kim Jong-un and his regime have not taken us up on that offer.  Instead, they continue to test their ballistic missiles; they continue to fire missiles into the sea.  They continue to also conduct provocative and unnecessary actions towards the south, which, again, just reminds us and underscores how important security and stability there on the Korean Peninsula is.  

In the back there.  Yeah. 

QUESTION:  Hi, David Alandete from the Spanish newspaper ABC.  The President is going to be visiting during the European election.  There has been concern in the rise of populism in the elections.  In France the right-wing populists of Front National are supposed to come first, according to the post.  Is there any concern with rising populism in the European Parliament and in elections in Europe and what this would mean for aid to Russia and the topic of – these type of attacks against Russia with European-provided weapons?  

MR KIRBY:  I’m not sure how you make – I’m not sure how to make the connection between the rise of populism and the threat to Russia.  I’m – but let me – let me start by saying we don’t involve ourselves in the domestic politics of other nations, and that’s certainly – well, it goes for everybody.  So the people living in these democracies, they have the right and, as citizens, the responsibility, to determine for themselves how they’re going to be governed and who is going to be in elected office.  And that’s their choice, that’s their right, and we have to respect that.  Just as we respect it here at home, we respect it overseas.  

The —but just as a matter of course, certainly here at home and elsewhere, we – the President believes strongly in democracy and in the power of democracy to represent the aspirations of the people.  And as we look out on the world and we see electoral processes going on, we are the first to congratulate and to cheer on those democratic processes and institutions that actually do that, that represent the aspirations of the electorate, of the people who are going to the polls.  Mexico just had a very dramatic outcome in their election here, electing the first female president, and the President was very quick to congratulate the Mexican people on that.  So we – that is essentially the power of democracy, and the President believes strongly in that.  And again, you’re going to hear him talk about that when he goes to France this week – no question about it.  

QUESTION:  Just a brief follow-up about disinformation.  It’s a problem that the United States has suffered here.  President Macron has been on the record complaining about the rise of disinformation, especially Russian disinformation —  

MR KIRBY:  Yeah. 

QUESTION:  — outlets that are operating within the European Union that were sanctioned and banned but are resurgent with Russian narratives, especially towards the war.  

MR KIRBY:  Right. 

QUESTION:  How big of a problem is this from the United States point of view?  And is it something that is going to be treated in this visit? 

MR KIRBY:  Disinformation is a significant problem around the world, and there are – there are nation-states and there are non-nation-state actors that participate in the spreading of disinformation, and Russia is right up there in terms of nation-state actors that participate in this in a very aggressive way.  We’ve seen it in our own electoral process here in this country and we’ve absolutely seen it elsewhere.  

We have implemented sanctions on actors in that space, and I – while I have no sanctions to announce today, I can certainly assure you that we’ll keep those options open going forward.  But we share President Macron’s concern.  And it’s not just President Macron.  Prime Minister Trudeau in Canada has spoken very passionately about concerns he has – with election interference and disinformation.  It’s a significant problem, and it’s only going to get harder as artificial intelligence technology improves.  It’s going to become a much more difficult problem, and it does require democracies to work together.  It does require us to share lessons learned and perspectives with one another so that we can try to stay ahead of the problem.  

I can take just a couple more.  Ma’am, you there.  Yeah.  Yeah.  

QUESTION:  Hello.  My name is Daria Gerasina.  I’m from RIA Novosti Russia.  Following the decision to allow strikes into Russia, has anyone from the U.S. administration had any contact with Russian officials on any level?  Maybe Russia reached out to you or you reached out to Russia.  Maybe Russia asked for clarification.  

And my second question is whether there is a mechanism in place which would allow the United States to ensure that this – that Ukraine stays within the limit, that Ukraine does not strike wider, because that’s very important – you understand – that they can just – couple of kilometers and this is another city.   

MR KIRBY:  I don’t have any – I don’t have any diplomatic conversations with Russia to speak to.  I’ll leave it at that.  

QUESTION:  Okay.  

MR KIRBY:  As I said in my previous answer, this guidance provided by the United States to Ukraine is limited and it’s bound by the use of – as counter-fire to go after imminent threats where they know they’re about to be struck by an artillery unit or a Russian rocket unit or that kind of thing.  And right now it’s focused largely on the Kharkiv region, as I said – so no change there.  And the Ukrainians have made it clear that they understand that guidance.  

QUESTION:  (Off-mike.)  

MR KIRBY:  They —  

QUESTION:  I’m sorry.  That they stay within —   

MR KIRBY:  They understand.  They understand.  The —  

QUESTION:  This is – understanding is not a guarantee.  

MR KIRBY:  I can appreciate that you may not like this decision by President Biden, and I’m sure that the outlet that you write for does not like this decision.  I can just – I’m just here to tell you they understand the guidance that has been provided them.  I would offer to you that if Russia and the Russian people are concerned about Ukrainian attacks, the best and most efficient way to alleviate those concerns is to take their troops and get them hell out of Ukraine where they have no business being in the first place.  That’s my best advice.  

I’ll take one more.  All the way in the back there.  Ma’am, you’ve been very patient.  Your hand has been jumping up every single time.  

QUESTION:  Thank you. 

MR KIRBY:  Yeah. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Kirby – Mexico.  Mexico just elected Claudia Sheinbaum.  You were mentioning the elections.  What do you expect in terms of the relationship between Mexico and the U.S. with the new President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, especially in the security field which is your field – crime, migration.  

MR KIRBY:  (Laughter.)  Yeah, I think the President will probably have a little more to say on this later today, but we’re looking forward to working with her and her new administration.  The President is confident that the increased and improved cooperation that we have had under President López Obrador and his administration will continue under President Sheinbaum’s administration as well.  We’re looking forward to working with her and her team.  Again, congratulate her on her victory, which is truly historic, really something special, and there’s no shortage of issues where we can continue to work together.  

And you mentioned security, certainly on the issues of the – of migration and issues around the border.  I think you can expect that we’ll continue to have the same level – we expect to have the same level of cooperation and support and dialogue and the sharing of lessons learned with her administration as we had with the previous one.  

Okay.  Thanks, everybody.  I’ve got to go.  I’m sorry for being late.  And thanks for all the birthday wishes.