Well, I this was an important trip to be here at the Munich Security Conference in particular. I said yesterday we are looking at a moment that is very decisive moment on one of the bases for the Munich Security Conference and certainly one of the founding reasons for NATO which is European security and the connection and alliances between Europe and the United States. This was a productive trip in terms of the extensive bilateral meetings that we had, that were in furtherance of the ongoing collaboration and partnership with our allies. It was important in that as you all know, this is a moment that is very dynamic, if not every hour, certainly every day. There seem to be new moments of interest and also of intelligence. And so we have affirmed, however, all that being said through these last couple of days, that this alliance is strong, probably stronger than it was before. And, and that this alliance has purpose and meaning founded on shared principles that are very much at play right now. As I mentioned yesterday, if we think about those principles, one of the most important is about a mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, which at its essence, is what is that in terms of Russia's posture as it relates to Ukraine. At stake, is the NATO alliance in terms of our unity joining together through sometimes compromise, certainly always through collaboration to being a unified voice, especially when these very founding principles of our relationship are being compromised, if not attack. So with that, I'll take a quick
detour from Reuters.
Thank you, Madam Vice President. During your meeting with President Solinsky, who spoke a little bit about asking the US for specific defense a, could you talk a little bit about what he asked the United States for and what the US has agreed to offer?
Sure, well tell you what I think you already know. So far, we have offered American offers we have. We have transferred and given $650 million in aid. We have also made certain loan guarantees around a particular $1 billion. And that is on top of all of the work that we have done collectively through the NATO to provide support for Ukraine.
Is there anything new that you're planning to offer Ukraine?
Well, what I made clear in our meeting, is that, again, this is a dynamic situation. And depending on what happens in the coming days, we will reevaluate the need that Ukraine has and our ability to support and we have been doing that through the course of these many months. Let's go to Mali from ABC.
I wanted to ask you first, are you going to take part in that NSC meeting? Yes. Today, we are going to take Martin out. Yes. And then I wanted to follow up on your meeting with President Solinsky yesterday when he spoke after your meeting, he shared his frustration with countries like us who saying that any attack is likely to happen in Ukraine, but that you won't put sanctions in place until that happens. You the administration has continually said that retaining those sanctions holds on to some leverage. But if you believe Putin has made up his mind, what leverage do you really have? Why not put those sanctions in place now?
The purpose of the sanctions has always been and continues to be deterrence. But let's also recognize the unique nature of the sanctions that we have outlined. These are some of the greatest sanctions, if not the strongest that we've ever issued, as I articulated yesterday. It is directed at institutions in particular financial institutions and individuals, and it will exact absolute term for the Russian economy. And their government.
But if Putin has made up his mind, do you feel that this threat that has been looming is really going to deter him?
Absolutely, I strongly believe and remember also that the sanctions are a product not only of our perspective as the United States, but a shared perspective among our allies, and the Allied relationship is such that we have agreed that the deterrence effect of these sanctions is still a meaningful one. Especially because remember all so we still sincerely hope that there is a diplomatic path out of this moment. And within the context, then of the fact that that window is still opening, although I open although it is absolutely narrowing, but within the context of a diplomatic path still being open. The deterrence effect we believe has merit.
Let's go to Jennifer Jacobs from Bloomberg.
Thank you would you be willing to talk a little bit about how the US would get out of this potential conflict with Russia? What is the end game? How does the US after imposing some of these sanctions and possible military action and how does the US disentangle from this?
I would characterize it differently. We don't consider ourselves to be entangled. But we're very clear of our principles and our purpose, which is to be aligned with our allies understanding that I mean, listen, guys we're talking about the potential for war in Europe. Me let's really take a moment to understand the significance of what we're talking about. It's been over 70 years, that through the 70 years as I mentioned yesterday, there has been peace and security. We are talking about the real possibility of war in Europe. So our position is for us very clear, which is as a leader, which we have been bringing together the Allies working together around our collective and unified position that we would all not just prefer we desire we believe it is in the best interest of all that there is a diplomatic end to this moment. And so where do we want this to end? That is where we want.
What should Americans be braced for? What could they possibly be facing? The President has already said Americans will be facing some economic fallout or some hardships. Can you explain to Americans what exactly what they face if this happens?
Sure, as the President talked about his feet we are aware that again, when America stands for principles, and all of the things that we hold dear, it requires sometimes for for us to put ourselves out there in a way that maybe we will incur some cost and in this situation, that may relate to energy costs, for example, but we are taking very specific and appropriate I believe steps to mitigate what that cost might be if it happens. It's going to Eli at the Los Angeles Times.
Thank you, Madam Vice President. A question about something else that presents Olinsky said yesterday, relating to NATO, he seemed to question the sincerity of allies, including the US, I think, in terms of a desire to admit Ukraine to NATO. Is there any is there any reaction to those pretty pointed comments from the President? And was that something that was discussed with Chancellor Shultz and other leaders?
Let me start by saying I appreciate and admire, presidents olanski His desire to join NATO. And one of again the founding principles of NATO is that each country must have the ability, unimpaired unimpeded to determine their own future, both in terms of their form of government, and in this way, whether they desire to be a member of NATO. And I'll put that in context because the obvious is also the point was is that and therefore no other country can tell anyone, whether they should or should not join, that should be their independent choice, that is the point sovereignty. So I respect presidents alliances desire to be a member of NATO. NATO has a membership. It is about nations coming together as a group making decisions collectively around again principles. And what will be then the conditions and and and the standards of membership. So that is the process. It doesn't happen overnight. No one country can say I want to be in therefore I will be and no one country can say you can. And this is that at the heart and they're very easily presented in terms of Russia's aggression. Or stated aggression.
More surprising to you, though he planted that flag so firmly on that issue, given that that's obviously Putin's main demand is that he gets some sort of guarantee, swearing that Ukraine won't be admitted that zolecki wants to make it clear that they do want into the organization. Was that a surprise that he would come and say that at this point in this crisis, and does that make it less likely that there'll be some sort of diplomatic resolution?
I'm not going to second guess president on skis. desires for some country but I will say this, let us recognize the position he's in his country is virtually surrounded by Russian troops. I believe he came here. This is my belief, based on just my own assessment of speculation he came here make a very clear point that he does not stand alone. In fact, I told him in our meeting, the United States stands with you. Because we do, as do this community of allies and partners. So I understand where and why he came here, and I will not second guess I will not second guess. Why he spoke the words. He speaks
a position again where his country is virtually surrounded by what by I think most reasonable people with really hostile troops. Go to armor the AC please.
Thank you, Madam Vice President. So Dilip Singh said late last week, that swift sanctions probably won't be part of the opening gambit. of sanctions go forward. Considering the administration saying early and often that you're going to stay high, start high and stay high. How does that square How can you start by and stay high without with sanctions in the package?
We're gonna take this one moment at a time in terms of what might need to happen in the future in terms of escalation. But right now, we've made our position clear. And last question, let's go to Natasha at CNN. Thank you,
Madam Vice President. I'm wondering whether the US has evidence that Putin has actually given the order to his subordinates to launch an attack and whether that intelligence and that evidence is shared and agreed upon by the Allies here, and that includes Zelinsky, who has been skeptical of this kind of intelligence in the past,
as the President has said, we believe that Google's made his decision theories and but I will also say that as part of our relationship and partnership, and in the context of the Alliance, we do share information, certainly, because we want to make sure that we are all working with the same information. What do we make these very critical and meaningful decisions? The last question about sanctions, and I said it yesterday on the stage, everybody didn't agree at the beginning, about what the consequences should be. If Russia re invades Ukraine, we have to meet we have to discuss it. Because each of these nations I mean, I spent spent time considerable amount of time with the chancellor of Germany Austria has spent time with the President even yesterday. When we look at the significance of these sanctions, they are immense. And so, all nations who are a part of this understand that we cannot take lightly or speak like about what we are prepared to do because we do understand the cost VR Exactly. And it is severe. So we have had these discussions again through a process we have arrived at this place. And, and back to the last question, we will obviously reassess depending on how the days weeks and months ahead, rolled out. And you but
I was just gonna ask Do you believe that the US and Ukraine are now more on the same page about what the intelligence suggests than they have been in the past?
I can tell you that there has been direct communication about the intelligence. Vice President nothing's being held back. The prime
minister of Italy does not agree with all of the same set of claims. He said yesterday that he does not feel that energy should be sanctioned. Does that not undercut US efforts to impose tough, painful severe financial sanctions as I said,
this is an alliance of nations that each have their priorities and their their individual concerns about how anything we do going forward will impact their specific country, their economies and their security. So again, I would not deny Italy from having its perspective or its list of concerns. We all do, actually, that has been part of this process. And so Italy is very much at the table in terms of these conversations about how we can do this in a way that achieves its intended purpose, which back to the earlier point is about deterring Russia from invading a sovereign nation. And we all understanding looting every country in Europe, what war in Europe looks like and what it can mean for the citizens of each of those countries. Thank you. Thank you all for joining us for something else. So if we could go back upstairs that would be great. Let's get out of here. I don't know what that was like. All actually
kind of thought our answer to our questions were more substantive.
