(AGENPARL) – lun 26 giugno 2023 You are subscribed to Department Press Briefings for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
06/26/2023 07:10 PM EDT
Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson
1:41 p.m. EDT
MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. I am very sorry to be late. But on the plus side, I don’t have – on the plus side —
QUESTION: On the plus side, you have so much information to impart to us that —
MR MILLER: On the plus side, I don’t have any opening remarks, so I’ll go right to your questions, to which —
QUESTION: All right. Well, let’s —
MR MILLER: — I will try to provide information.
QUESTION: Let’s start with the main topic of the day. And frankly, I don’t expect that you’re going to have a lot to say, so – but anyway.
MR MILLER: You never know, Matt. You can always try your best.
QUESTION: Well, what’s your understanding of the situation in Ukraine, Russia, Wagner, Belarus?
[]MR MILLER: So, I don’t have any specific assessment to make in terms of the facts on the ground. Obviously, we all saw what happened over the weekend.
I will say, in our assessment, it remains a dynamic situation. It’s unclear what the ultimate implications of what happened will be. As it relates to United States activities and United States interests, I’ll speak to what we did over the weekend.
Number one, the President focused on convening allies and partners. You saw that he had a call with members of the Quad, Secretary Blinken had a call with members of the G7, he had a call with Secretary Kuleba of Ukraine, with – sorry, with Foreign Minister Kuleba of Ukraine, with foreign ministers from Türkiye and Poland. We continue to have discussions with our allies and partners today.
We also made clear to Ukraine, as we made clear in conversations with our allies and partners, that our steadfast support for Ukraine will remain so, no matter what happens in Russia.
And I will say, with respect to the activities over the weekend, obviously they were a significant step. It is a – certainly, a new thing to see President Putin’s leadership directly challenged. It is a new thing to see Yevgeniy Prigozhin directly questioning the rationale for this war, and calling out that the war has been conducted, essentially, based on a lie, which is something that we have said previously, but we certainly have not seen coming from Russian officials previously. Those are all significant steps. And what the implications of those are, I think, remains to be seen.
QUESTION: Okay, but – so you think that Prigozhin is a Russian official?
MR MILLER: He is not a —
QUESTION: I’m not sure —
MR MILLER: He is certainly a leader of Russian forces that have engaged on the battlefield, or was.
QUESTION: Or was?
MR MILLER: Or was. I think it remains to be seen – we’ve seen the announcements, but I think it remains to be seen, the final or the – the current or final disposition of Wagner and Yevgeniy Prigozhin.
QUESTION: Okay. And do you have any idea where he is right now?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any assessment about his location.
QUESTION: And then last thing is do you think that this is going to have any kind of impact on the Russian operations in Ukraine or, also, on Wagner activities outside of Ukraine, like in Syria and in Africa?
MR MILLER: I think it’s too soon to tell with respect to both of those questions. Certainly, the events we saw over the weekend, where you see Wagner forces to some extent withdrawing from Ukraine, and instead marching on and eventually occupying a Russian city, are a significant step. What happens to those Wagner forces in the wake of the announcements on Saturday and the last couple days? I think we just don’t know the answer to that yet. We don’t know what will happen to Wagner in Ukraine; we don’t know what will happen to Wagner in Africa.
I will say that, as we’ve said before, obviously, wherever we’ve seen Wagner operate in the past we’ve seen death and destruction follow in their wake. And we have instituted a series of policies to hold them accountable, and to counter Wagner’s influence. And to the extent Wagner continues to operate in Africa, or in Ukraine, or anywhere else in the world, or any Wagner successor organizations pick up the mantle that Wagner has carried, we will continue to take actions to hold either Wagner or their successor accountable.
QUESTION: Okay, last one. Just – so Ambassador Tracy went to the foreign ministry, or called the foreign ministry, and there was a – there were communications here in D.C.?
MR MILLER: There —
QUESTION: And what were – what were they?
MR MILLER: We had communications over the weekend on – actually, I will just say we had communications on Saturday with the Russian Government, both Ambassador Tracy and at other levels here in Washington, where we delivered two messages to them: number one, we expected Russia to withhold its obligations – to uphold its obligations, I should say, to protect our embassy and to protect diplomatic personnel who are in Moscow; and two, to reiterate what we said publicly, that this is an internal Russian affair in which the United States is not involved and will not be involved.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Andrea.
QUESTION: Matt, Senator Warner – obviously, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee – told me on the air that they believe, or he believes from reports he’s seen, that Prigozhin is in Minsk. Do you have any indication that that’s – of that as well?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any assessment on his location, no.
QUESTION: And do you have any indication of what concessions he may have received regarding Shoigu or anything else, for turning around?
MR MILLER: I do not, I do not. I would note in respect to that – and we’ve gotten a lot of questions with respect to Shoigu or Gerasimov, and I will say – it relates to the last question I answered from Matt – that the United States does not take a position on the leadership of the Russian Federation. We do not take a position on the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Our policies have been – always been with respect to actions that Russia has taken.
We want a Russia that is not invading its neighbors and trying to violate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of its neighbors. We want a Russia that is not conducting malign influence operations across the world. That has always been our policy with Russia, not the disposition of the ministry of defense or any other offices inside the country.
QUESTION: The one on-the-record statement that came out on Saturday was the confidence in the command and control of the nuclear forces. And I infer from that that there is military-to-military communication, as one would expect, between us and the Russians, in contrast to – obviously to a different situation with China or —
MR MILLER: I won’t speak to any inferences. I will say that I will let the Pentagon speak to any military-to-military communications, whether it happened or not. I will say, however, as the Secretary said yesterday, we do not – did not see, do not see any change in the disposition of Russian nuclear forces and have not changed the disposition of ours.
QUESTION: And the Secretary did say in some of his interviews that Putin’s influence, power, whatever, has clearly been shaken by this, by his speech, by the whole nexus of what has happened. Can you speak to that?
MR MILLER: Yeah. I will say, as I said a moment ago, this certainly was a new moment in – if you look – think of the events of the last few years. As the Secretary said, 16 months ago the Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin envisioned that Russian forces would be taking Kyiv, and instead over the weekend we saw Russian forces taking a Russian Ministry of Defense office inside a Russian city. We saw the entire pretext of this war being questioned openly – something we have done, something our allies and partners have done, something that you have not seen inside the borders of Russia. In fact, you can be thrown in jail for taking that step as an ordinary citizen inside of Russia. We saw Yevgeniy Prigozhin directly questioning not just the ministry of defense officials, as he’s done for some time, but really directly challenging President Putin’s leadership.
Those are all significant steps and a significant change from what we’ve seen certainly in the last 16 months, but over a number of years. Where that – what that means going forward, we don’t know.
QUESTION: Has Vladimir Putin, as you know him and as this administration knows him, tolerated this kind of insubordination? Whether in the immediate future or long term, would he tolerate this kind of challenge to his authority?
MR MILLER: I would not ever want to speculate on how Vladimir Putin might respond to any event, certainly not an event inside Russia.
QUESTION: Follow-up on Russia?
QUESTION: I’d like to follow up.
MR MILLER: Kylie. Kylie.
QUESTION: On the diplomatic efforts that were made over the weekend, did Russians respond to those messages from U.S. diplomats, Ambassador Tracy, and the others?
MR MILLER: I won’t speak to the Russian response; I’ll just speak to the messages that we delivered to them.
QUESTION: You – I’m not asking you to characterize them. I’m just asking you to say yes or no if they responded.
MR MILLER: Well, it was a conversation. They – I mean, it wasn’t a one-way —
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: These weren’t one-way conversations that we delivered, and the other side hangs up.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR MILLER: There – it was a conversation, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And then one thing that the Secretary said over the weekend is that, to the extent that Russia is now distracted by what’s happening internally in its country, that could create an additional advantage for the Ukrainians. How exactly is the United States encouraging the Ukrainians to take advantage of this moment?
MR MILLER: So, I would say that I would frame it slightly differently. We continue to supply the Ukrainians with the equipment they need to conduct the counteroffensive, and to defend themselves long term. We continue to have intelligence-sharing channels with the Ukrainians. We continue to have military-to-military channels, we continue to have diplomatic channels that are open with Ukraine.
What the Secretary was speaking to is the fact that you did see Wagner forces withdraw from Ukraine and instead move on a Russian city. How that shakes out, what happens in the coming days with respect to Wagner forces or other Russian military forces I don’t think we can say. But certainly, we are in close consultation with Ukraine and the Ukrainian military about the ongoing counteroffensive.
QUESTION: Follow-up on Russia?
MR MILLER: Go ahead, yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Last time White House and State Department said that Prigozhin and North Korea had an arms deal. What change do you see in the arms trade between Prigozhin and North Korea? Is there any change, in your opinion?
MR MILLER: I think it’s too soon to tell. It’s too early to tell how any of the existing Wagner operations or Wagner arrangements will change, if at all, moving forward.
QUESTION: And the Chinese foreign minister and the Russian foreign minister had a meeting yesterday. Do you know about the contents of their meetings?
MR MILLER: I do not know the contents of those meetings. I will say – will reiterate what Secretary Blinken said when he was in Beijing and in a number of interviews afterwards, which when we were in Beijing – this was last – over a week ago now, or a week ago Sunday and Monday – the issue of Ukraine and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did come up in our meetings, and Secretary Blinken was quite clear with the Chinese officials that he met with that if they wanted to play a constructive role in helping find a just and lasting peace that recognized Ukrainians’ – Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty – territorial integrity and sovereignty, we would welcome them playing such a role. But I don’t have any readout of those meetings that took place.
QUESTION: A follow-up?
MR MILLER: I’ll come to – and I’ll come to you next.
QUESTION: Yes, just to follow up on that, do you think – is there anything you can sort of parse from Chinese statements about the mutiny? And, I guess, do you think that this – seeing this instability and the cracks in the Russian regime might give China sort of pause in their support for the Russians over the war in Ukraine?
[]MR MILLER: I wouldn’t want to speculate on how they might read this situation. I would say that – I would just reiterate what Secretary Blinken said directly in his meetings to them, which is we would urge them to continue to not support Russia with direct military assistance. We’ve obviously made our concerns about potential support public in the past. We have not seen them take that step. They discussed that in their meetings.
And whether it changes how they’ve approached this conflict or not, I don’t know. But if they did want to play a constructive role that recognized the need to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, it’s a role that we would welcome them playing.
QUESTION: Could I ask about the Belarusian – the element of Belarus in this? Has there been any direct contact with the United States and Lukashenka or people in the Lukashenka regime over this?
MR MILLER: Not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: Is there any message or is there any impact there would be on relations? Obviously, they’re already quite bad with Lukashenka, but is this – how do you see the fact that Prigozhin supposedly is going to Belarus?
[]MR MILLER: I think before I comment on that I’d want to wait and see what actually happens –where Prigozhin actually does end up, before I make any kind of speculatory comment about what – a speculative comment about what may occur.
QUESTION: So, you think it’s possible he won’t wind up in Belarus? Is that —
MR MILLER: We just don’t have any assessment, at this time.
QUESTION: Sure. And can I follow up?
MR MILLER: Yes.
QUESTION: You mentioned earlier on Africa, the Wagner operations there, that you don’t – you can’t say yet what’s going to happen. But is there a message the United States has to countries – say Mali, Burkina Faso allegedly, some other countries that have partnered with Wagner – about what this unrest shows about Wagner’s activities and which direction they should go?
MR MILLER: I will say two things. Number one, to reiterate the message that we have given to these countries publicly and privately in the past, which is that any time Wagner enters a country, death and destruction follows. We see Wagner exploit local populations. We see them extract local wealth. We see them commit human rights abuses. So, we have always encouraged any country not to engage with Wagner forces because of the deleterious effects it will have on their countries and most specifically on their people.
And then second with respect to this, I would say – just what happened over the weekend, it would just – it would reinforce the concerns we’ve stated about the instability that Wagner brings with it when it enters any country.
QUESTION: Just a couple of questions to follow up on what you just said. To backtrack a little bit, what is the State Department’s definition on what happened, nearly happened, or failed to happen over the weekend?
MR MILLER: What do you mean?
QUESTION: You just – you just said the events that happened. Do you have any definition? How do you call it?
MR MILLER: I think the events that happened were Yevgeniy Prigozhin took a group of his forces and marched on Rostov and then continued to Moscow and then stopped.
QUESTION: Was it a coup attempt or is there any other —
MR MILLER: I will say no one in the United States Government has used that term. I won’t speak to what his eventual motivations were, what his intentions were. I’ll say it is only – it is Vladimir Putin that raised the specter of 1917, not someone from – not anyone from the United States Government.
QUESTION: And can you tell the timeline – can we be precise on when did exactly your ambassador reach out to Russians, and what did she convey? Everything we have heard from Lavrov today quoting her, was it accurate?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to Lavrov’s characterization. The conversations that we had with the Russian Government were on Saturday, and they were along the lines that I just outlined a minute ago. I’m happy to go through them again if you want.
QUESTION: And finally, the Secretary said yesterday that we haven’t seen the last act yet. I’m just curious how much does it reflect sentiment on your end that this might be just an episode of what can be a long-running internal fighting in Russia.
MR MILLER: I think the – what the Secretary was speaking to was quite obvious, in that this is a situation that remains dynamic, and we do not yet know how it will end.
QUESTION: How does the Secretary envision the last act?
MR MILLER: The Secretary envisions the final act as Russia withdrawing its forces from Ukraine; and if not, Ukraine being victorious on the battlefield. Beyond that, I wouldn’t want to speculate.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you have an assessment on the status of the Wagner kind of forces after the weekend’s events?
MR MILLER: I do not. I do not.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: So, yeah, just to summarize what happened. Whether you call it a coup or not, there was almost a coup within the world’s largest nuclear power over the weekend. And you mentioned him questioning the war as kind of a positive, but this is also the same guy – Prigozhin – who has criticized Putin for not being aggressive enough in the war of Ukraine – and has even said things like Russia should become more like North Korea to have success in this war.
So, he took over Russia’s Southern Military District. That district is 60 miles away from one of their nuclear airbases. So, in general, this seems like an incredibly dangerous situation. I see you’re viewing some of the developments in a positive light, but it – to me it just seems like this was the most dangerous situation that has happened since the beginning of the war.
And my question is: given how much funding we’ve provided in this war – we’ve provided more than any country in the world, more than the two countries that are even fighting the war – we could end this diplomatically to avoid another situation like this. But you’ve said we’re still steadfastly supporting Ukraine until the end. Was there no consideration of how differently this coup could have gone, how out of hand it could have gone? And then does that affect your consideration into like – is it worth it? Is it worth this nuclear risk? Is it worth a mercenary getting access to Russia’s nuclear arsenal? Are the Crimea and the Donbas – who rules those regions – worth it?
MR MILLER: Wow. Let me – that was a lot. Wow. I will say a few things. First of all, I do not agree with your characterization of how we interpreted the events here. Number two, I will say there are no heroes on either side of this conflict, between the Russian regime and Yevgeniy Prigozhin. We’ve seen both Russian military forces and Yevgeniy Prigozhin’s Wagner forces commit brutal atrocities in Ukraine – attacking civilians, attacking civilian infrastructure.
Second, that we do not take any position – as I said a number of times, on what is an internal Russian matter, which is ultimately a decision for the Russian people to make.
Third, I will say when you look at the events over the weekend, it only reinforces the need for us to continue to support Ukraine, which is the country that was invaded by Russia – by Russian miliary forces and by Wagner forces. If anything, our support for Ukraine in the wake of this event is more steadfast than it’s ever been.
QUESTION: Right. Well, so – so I wasn’t trying to say that you – just real quick, though. I wasn’t trying to say that you were supporting Prigozhin in any way. I’m just saying this development was extremely dangerous, and I – do you at least admit that? This guy was 60 miles from their nuclear airbase.
MR MILLER: The Secretary said yesterday that instability in a major country is always a concern. It’s something we monitor closely.
QUESTION: In the world’s largest nuclear country.
MR MILLER: Yeah, I think I answered the question. Said, go ahead.
QUESTION: I want to change topics.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR MILLER: Before we – I’ll come —
QUESTION: On Russia.
QUESTION: Also, on Russia.
MR MILLER: One more. Kylie first, and then go to you, and then we’ll change topics.
QUESTION: Just one thing that you mentioned is – sorry, I’m just figuring exactly what you said. You said —
MR MILLER: Me, too.
QUESTION: — the United States will continue to – sorry. The United States will continue to impose costs on Wagner or its successor. Is there any indication right now that Wagner is actually standing up a successor organization?
MR MILLER: I think I said or its successor, if any.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: We’ve noted the announcements by the ministry of defense that Wagner forces are supposed to be absorbed into the ministry of defense. We don’t have any assessment of what will happen to the Wagner Group either in Ukraine or elsewhere around the world. But whether it’s Wagner or whether it’s a successor or whether it’s any other organization that conducts the activities that Wagner has conducted to destabilize countries, we will hold that – those organizations accountable.
QUESTION: But no indication that Prigozhin is actively forming a successor organization at this moment?
MR MILLER: I just don’t have any assessments at all at this time.
QUESTION: Sure, okay.
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. There are media reports that the Biden administration had intelligence about the mutiny rebellion, how you call it, since mid-June. Is that correct? And also, if that’s true, why didn’t the administration issue any warnings to its citizens inside Russia since mid-June?
MR MILLER: So, a few things. Number one, I’m not going to speak to any intelligence matters, as I never do from this podium. I will say you didn’t exactly need a classified briefing to know that there were tensions between Yevgeniy Prigozhin and the Russian Ministry of Defense. He’s been quite open about those, and those tensions have been escalating in plain sight for anyone for the last several months.
I will say with respect to American citizens in Russia, separate and apart from this matter we have been quite clear for some time that any American citizens considering travel to Russia should not do so, and any American citizens who are in Russia should depart immediately.
All right. Anything else on this topic? Or I’ll go to Said, if not.
QUESTION: One more. One more?
MR MILLER: Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: There is another report, media report, that State Department / Treasury decided to postpone announcing new sanctions against Wagner, following the mutiny. Can you confirm that?
MR MILLER: No. We never comment on the timing of sanctions actions. I will say generally we always time the sanctions actions that we take for maximum impact and maximum effect, and we will continue, as I said a moment ago, to hold Wagner or any other organization that conducts the destabilizing activities that Wagner has done across the world, we will continue to hold any such organization accountable.
Russia?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR MILLER: Okay, I promise – I promised Said he gets the first non-Russia question, so —
QUESTION: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up. So, the Russians, are they responding in real time to all the outreach that the President ordered, and are you confident that they would respond similarly if it escalated to a nuclear crisis?
MR MILLER: I certainly wouldn’t want to speculate about the second part of your question. These were conversations that we had with Russians – Russian officials. So, you know the way a conversation works: you say something; they respond. So yes, we’re responding.1
QUESTION: Can I get one last follow-up on —
MR MILLER: You had – you’ve had a few already. Russia?
QUESTION: Thank you. How do you view the possibility – I know you’ve said you don’t want to speculate – but the possibility of Putin adopting more aggressive tactics in Ukraine as an attempt to consolidate his strength after this event?
MR MILLER: I wouldn’t want to speculate about that at all. We have seen him take a number of aggressive actions. Even over the weekend they continue to launch missile strikes on Ukraine. All I can say are the – all I can speak to are the actions that we will take, which is to continue to provide Ukraine what it needs to defend itself and reclaim its territory.
All right.
QUESTION: Okay, on that —
MR MILLER: I’m going to go —
QUESTION: I’m sorry. You said it demonstrates —
MR MILLER: You don’t have to. Said. Said, the —
QUESTION: You said it demonstrates —
MR MILLER: Said, the floor is yours.
QUESTION: You said it demonstrates the need for us to continually support Ukraine.
MR MILLER: I —
QUESTION: But you’re not acknowledging that – how does this not demonstrate the need of how dangerous and how quickly this war can get out of hand?
MR MILLER: War is certainly dangerous, which is why we think Russia should end this war immediately, as we’ve called —
QUESTION: We think they should, but —
MR MILLER: — as we’ve called on them to do for some time. Said, go ahead.
QUESTION: But —
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I’m going to switch to the Palestinian issue. I’m tempted to ask about Russia; I have many questions, but let me —
MR MILLER: You can ask a question about Russia, Said. You’re not – you’re not pigeonholed.
QUESTION: Let me stick to the – to the Palestinian issue. Over the past few days, there were many attacks by settlers on Palestinian villages and towns. I’m going to ask you about one of them, Turmus Ayya, really almost – largely owned by U.S. citizens and so on, maybe something – 85 percent of all homes are owned by U.S. citizens. I want to ask you about two people: Omar Qatin, who was killed by a policeman; he is a U.S. resident, has a – he has an alien card in the U.S. His wife is an American citizen. His children were American citizens. And my question to you: Have you been in touch with the family?
[]MR MILLER: I won’t speak to any private conversations we have. Obviously, we always loss – or lament the loss of any civilian life. It’s a matter we take very seriously, and our condolences certainly go out to his family.
QUESTION: There’s also a U.S. legislator, who’s from the town. He’s there, Abdelnasser Rashid. He’s an Illinois state representative, and apparently his home was also attacked, his family was stoned and so on, and escaped being torched – just barely. Are you in touch with him?
MR MILLER: Again, I won’t speak to any private conversations we might be having.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the Israelis ought to compensate the Palestinians for their loss of property?
MR MILLER: With respect to —
QUESTION: With respect to all these homes that were torched, and property destroyed – cars destroyed? All this stuff happened, transpired, over the past few days.
MR MILLER: I will say that we condemn all acts of extremist violence and incitement to violence, whether they be either Israel or Palestinian. And we remain steadfast in our work to promote de-escalation, and beyond this, an environment in which Israelis and Palestinians alike are afforded equal measures of security, prosperity, and dignity.
QUESTION: Yes. But do you believe that Palestinians that lost property ought to be compensated?