брифинг зам пресс секретаря пентагона на прошлой неделеQ: Sabrina, is there a shortage of M-1 Abram tanks? Is that why you're having to go through the procurement process that's not going to allow them to be there until, you know, almost a year's time? Why not just take them off the shelf to get them in the fight sooner?
MS. SINGH: That's a great question. We are using the USAI because that's exactly it. We just don't have these tanks available in excess in our U.S. stocks, which is why it is going to take months to transfer these M1A2 Abrams to Ukraine. And I think that you have to remember, I mean, as you probably know, these tanks are going to require training, maintenance, sustainment that is going to take a very long time to also train the Ukrainians on. And so, because of that -- and we took that into account -- that's why we are using the USAI capability in order to procure these tanks for the Ukrainians.
Q: And what changed from Tuesday to Thursday, when here at the podium we heard that the M1 Abrams was too difficult logistically to support, it was the wrong weapon to be sent, and then hearing that the President had authorized 31 to be sent?
MS. SINGH: Well, I don't think that -- I would just say that, you know, we stand by the statements that we made from here at the podium, and that you've heard Secretary Austin and the chairman say before. These are going to be difficult capabilities to maintain and sustain. We stand by that. There's going to be challenges to them.
That said, following the Secretary's visit to the Ukraine Contact Group, meeting with partners and allies, we saw a commitment in immediate capabilities that could be rushed to the battlefield right now or in the -- in the near term, and part of our commitment to giving the Abrams is a long-term show of commitment. And so, the timing made sense, along with our partners and allies announcing other capabilities that they were going to give to Ukraine. And so, again, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't say that decisions changed. We've always been very honest about the challenges with these capabilities.
- У нас что, мало абрамсов? почему нельзя взять их со склада и надо заказывать производство новых? придётся же ждать почти год
- Хороший вопрос. Мы заказали танки, потому что лишних у нас на складах нет, поэтому нам понадобятся месяцы. Но ведь украинцев всё равно придётся очень долго обучать ими пользоваться, так что какая разница? поэтому мы и решили, пока они обучаются, мы им сделаем новые танки.
- И что интересно изменилось со вторника по четверг, когда во вторник нам говорили, что абрамсы ну так сложны в поддержке, не надо их слать, и вдруг бац - президент решил послать.
- Ну, ничего не изменилось, мы стоим на своём, они сложны в поддержке.
При всём при том, когда минобороны посетил украинскую контактную группу, мы увидели, что другие страны готовы дать танки прямо щас, и мы тогда решили - мы тоже дадим, но не прямо щас, а как пример долгосрочной поддержки. Но так-то мы никогда не врём.
Q: Sabrina, yesterday, when President Biden announced this tank and the aid -- tank aid to Ukraine, he said Secretary Austin advised him to do that.
MS. SINGH: He did.
Q: And could you tell us, based on -- because we heard from this Department several times that it's not a rational -- I guess not -- tactically, it's -- they are -- it's difficult to maintain, sustain -- and could you tell us what was the rationale behind Secretary Austin's advice? Was it a political or was it a military, tactical advice?
MS. SINGH: Well, I think the Secretary and the Chairman's position, when it came to the Abrams, has not changed. I mean, it is going to be a challenge to sustain and maintain these tanks. That said, following the Contact Group, following meetings with partners and allies there -- and again, these are almost 50 nations participating in the Contact Group -- the Secretary came away from those conversations feeling that we needed to provide a long-term commitment to Ukraine.
And we know that it's not just going to be armored personnel carriers, it's not going to just be infantry vehicles, tanks. I mean, these are all capabilities that are going to enable more maneuverability but it's not just one system that's going to be the -- you know, the magic wand that all of a -- suddenly ends this war. But providing a long term commitment was something that the Secretary felt very strongly about, and that is why he recommended to the President that we do provide these Abrams.
And, you know, I've seen people say "Well, this -- is this symbolic of, you know, something just given to Ukraine so you could unlock other allies to -- to give their tanks?" And I would say to that that I -- I don't think a battalion of Abrams given to -- to Ukraine is at all symbolic. This is a real capability that will certainly give Ukraine an upper edge on the battlefield.
- вчера, когда Байден сказал, что хочет послать танки, он сказал, что минобороны Остин ему посоветовал
- это правда
- но мы столько раз слышали от минобороны, что нерационально посылать им абрамсы, каковы же были его соображения чтобы вдруг передумать? Это политический или военно-тактический совет?
- Позиция наша не изменилась, абрамсы сложные. Но пообщавшись с союзниками на встрече, минобороны вышел оттуда с мыслью, что надо дать долгосрочные обязательства Украине.
И это не только бронированные машины, не только танки. Т.е. это всё хорошие вещи, они дают больше манёвренности, но не то что одно какое-то оружие как волшебная палочка всё решит. Но просто минобороны решил, что пора опять показать, что мы с Украиной надолго, и поэтому посоветовал президенту послать абрамсы.
Да, я видела, многие говорят - ну это символический жест, чтобы разлочить танки для Украины из других стран, но я так скажу - батальон абрамсов трудно назвать просто символом, это серьёзное и мощное оружие, которое поможет Украине.
Q: Can you just (inaudible) why not F-16s and, but tanks?
MS. SINGH: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
Q: As we are talking about the long-term commitment, why we are not discussing F-16s to Ukraine? Instead, we are sending these tanks?
MS. SINGH: Well -
Q: (Inaudible) it's going to be a longer commitment and Ukraine…
MS. SINGH: But we haven't -- we have other -- we haven't announced other packages. Again, we have authorization from Congress to continue to have presidential drawdowns, other security assistance packages. So, we are going to continue to provide Ukraine with what it needs in the short term and the long term. Let me move on. Yes?
- почему не F16, а танки?
- что-что?
- если уж мы хотим продемонстрировать долгосрочную поддержку, почему мы не говорим про F16? вместо этих танков
- ну...
- по-моему, так поддержка выглядела бы ещё долгосрочнее
- ну просто мы же ещё не анонсировали новые пакеты. А так у нас и президентские из'ятия есть, мы не только долгосрочно, мы и краткосрочно поддерживаем, на ладно, давайте дальше.
Q: And also, when -- could you comment on Russian -- the Russian ambassador here said that this is an -- you know -- it's an escalation of the war …
MS. SINGH: I mean, I feel like I've heard that talking point before from them when it was -- whether it was the Javelins that we were giving or the HIMARs and then the Patriot. Everything seems, I guess, to be an escalation. I don't view it as that.
This is a war that Russia started, invading a sovereign state. And I -- the only escalation here is the continued barrage of whether it's Russian strikes against an electrical grid or killing innocent Ukrainian civilians. That is -- that is the escalation that we're seeing. So, I don't view our support for Ukraine as any escalation at all.
- русский посол сказал, что это эскалация войны
- мы уже не первый раз это слышим. Сначала джавелины были эскалацией, потом хаймарсы, потом патриоты. Всё у них эскалация. Я не согласна.
Рашисты это сами начали, и единственная эскалация тут это что они сами делают, бомбя электростанции и мирных украинцев. Наша поддержка это не эскалация.
Q: Hi. Thanks, Sabrina. So, we're sending in the tanks. They could be susceptible to air attacks. Does it make sense to send in air defense, like they were mentioning, the F-16s? Is that next? And it seems like we keep pushing the envelope on what we're sending as the war evolves. So, I was curious what is the new line for us here?
MS. SINGH: Well, I don't know that we've ever drawn a line. We've certainly -- you know, we're not going to take anything off the table here. We are given air defense capability systems and, you know, we're training the Ukrainians on the Patriots right now. They've -- we've seen them make incredible use of some of the air capabilities that not just we have given, but other countries and other partners.
In terms of what's next, you know, again, I'm not going to get ahead of any packages that haven't been announced or any decision by the President or the Secretary. But I think our commitment remains, as you've seen, pretty forceful with Ukraine.
- мы шлём танки. Их можно бомбить с воздуха. Может стоит послать и противовоздушную оборону, которую они просят? F16? Они следующие? Похоже, мы потихоньку смещаем границы на то, что мы готовы послать. Какая у нас новая границы?
- не думаю, что мы устанавливали какие-то границы. Мы ничего не исключаем. Мы давали противовоздушную оборону, мы тренируем украинцев сейчас на патриотах. Мы видели, как здорово они применяют не только наше оружие, но и из других стран.
Что же до "что дальше", я не буду забегать вперёд, пока ещё ничего не решено президентом или минобороны. Но наша приверженность Украине сильна как никогда.
Q: You just said that you will provide M1A2, the top-of-the-line of the Abrams, to the Kyiv. But some reports suggest that, because of the secret armors of the Abrams in U.S. Army, the United States doesn't want to send its tanks and decide to order from the manufacturers rather than pulling from the stockpiles to prevent these secrets to be discovered by Russians. Can you confirm these reports?
MS. SINGH: I cannot, no. I have nothing to say -- I -- I cannot confirm that report. We're giving the M1A2 variant of the tank. Again, this is something that we're trying to newly procure through the USAI. But I would just -- I have nothing else to comment on that.
- говорят, вы хотите сделать новые танки, потому что в американских танках какая-то секретная броня, поэтому надо сделать другие, без брони, чтобы русские не пронюхали ваши секреты.
- я не могу подтвердить эти сообщения. Мы даём версию M1A2. Мы её заказали на заводе. Больше мне нечего сказать.
Q: Is the sense in the Pentagon that there is no red line now that would cause Russia to do something to -- to take the war to a level that would involve NATO or an attack on NATO or the use of tactical nukes, as they've threatened before?
MS. SINGH: Well, again, we've seen no indication that Russia intends to use a nuclear weapon. You know in terms of a red -- a line that would be crossed, you know, I would leave that to Russia to answer that.
All we can continue to do is to continue to support Ukraine with what it needs on the battlefield. And that's why you're seeing immediate support going -- flowing in right away to the country and then also seeing long-term commitments.
But in terms of, you know, what Russia says, again, we do take seriously their threats against Ukraine, against any of our partners and allies, but, you know, the constant barrage of missiles coming down on the Ukrainian civilians, on electrical grids and infrastructure, again, this war could stop tomorrow -- today.
And so, you know, I -- we're going to continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Q: Would it be fair to say then that there's less pause here in the U.S. when Russia makes those threats regarding the provision of more advanced weapon systems?
MS. SINGH: I mean I'm -- I feel like I've answered that question. But I just want to say that, again, we've heard these comments from Russia before. We do take what Russia says seriously, if they are going to threaten a partner, an ally, us. But we've heard them say before that these actions are escalatory.
We are going to continue to provide Ukraine what it needs. And we are in this for the long term. And, you've heard the President say that, you've heard the Secretary say that, and I think our announcement this week just reaffirms that.
- что ж, вы больше не боитесь рашку-говняшку, что она там чо-то на нато нападёт, или ядерные бомбы расчехлит? у вас больше нет красных линий?
- мы не видим признаков, что они готовы использовать ядерные бомбы. Что касается красных линий, это русских надо спрашивать.
Мы только можем продолжать помогать Украине.
Что же до того, что раша говорит, мы серьёзно воспринимаем её угрозы Украине, угрозы нашим союзникам, но эти постоянные потоки ракет на мирные города, без всякого смысла, мы в общем стоим вместе с Украиной.
- ну правильно ли будет сказать, что вы активнее шлёте всё более лучшее оружие Украине, меньше обращаете внимание на рашкино вякание?
- Мне кажется, я уже ответила. Да, мы не первый раз слышим рашистские угрозы, мы не отмахиваемся, но они продолжают говорить. А мы продолжаем поддерживать Украину.
