NATO defence ministers are expected this week to set in motion a plan that could establish four multinational battlegroups in southeastern Europe in response to Russia’s military build-up in Ukraine, four diplomats said.

U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith told reporters that ministers would discuss “additional enhancements” but declined to give more details. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “We’re also going to consider a more long-term adjustment of posture, including considering the battlegroup in Romania.”

They spoke as Russia said some troops near Ukraine were returning to their bases after military exercises, easing concerns over a potential invasion. But Stoltenberg also said that while he saw signs for optimism, he had not seen yet seen any sign of de-escalation on the ground.

Below is a full rush transcript of the press conference by Ambassador Julianne Smith , U.S. Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Ambassador Smith: Good morning to anybody who’s on the other side of the Atlantic.  It’s a pleasure to be here doing this today.  As I think all of you know, I’m pretty new to my position here in Brussels still, so I’ll just take a minute to offer a couple of quick impressions from my first few months on the job.

First let me say I’ve been profoundly impressed by the unity that we’ve seen inside this Alliance in recent weeks.  Of course, every member of the Alliance always brings a different perspective to NATO by virtue of their history, their geography.  But I think what’s been very clear to me is that we all are united in our purpose at this moment and our commitment to collective self-defense.  And when I sat in the NATO-Russia Council a couple of weeks ago, what was very clear to me was that every Ally was intent on delivering a crystal-clear message to Russia in that meeting, and the message essentially remains the same, and that is that we remain open to dialogue with Russia.  We are urging Russia to de-escalate through diplomacy and dialogue, but we’ve also been clear that Allies are ready to impose serious consequences should Russia further invade Ukraine.

Question:  The United States is deploying thousands of more soldiers to the European theater.  Some NATO countries have committed to rotating more forces in and out of the Baltics as well as some fighter jets and warships.  Would the U.S. like to see a stronger European commitment to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank?

Ambassador Smith:  I think it’s been pretty impressive in recent weeks to see how many different NATO Allies have made the decision to reinforce our Allies in Central and Eastern Europe.  Of course, as you mentioned, the United States has moved some of its own force posture both from Germany to Central and Eastern Europe – we moved forces from Germany to Romania – but we’ve also moved some troops from the United States to Central and Eastern Europe, including in Poland, as you’ve seen in the headlines.

But if you can bear with me for a minute, I think it’s worth mentioning how many other Allies have taken similar decisions.  You mentioned Denmark.  I believe the question came from Denmark.  Denmark decided to send a frigate to the Baltic Sea and is deploying F-16 fighter jets to Lithuania.  In the Baltic states we’ve seen the UK deploy additional troops to Poland.  Germany has deployed additional troops to NATO’s multinational battle group in Lithuania.  France has expressed readiness to send troops to the eastern part of the Alliance under NATO command.  Spain is sending ships to NATO Naval Forces.  And the Netherlands is sending F-35 fighter jets to Bulgaria.

So, “Is this all?” I guess is the question, and we don’t know the answer to that.  I think defense ministers will be meeting here in Brussels over the next two days, and they’ll no doubt be assessing the situation in and around Ukraine and looking at any additional requirements that might need to be met on NATO territory, and they’ll look at whether or not additional enhancements might be necessary.  But we’ll have to stand by and see where those discussions go in the next few days.  

Question:  One of the obvious questions that we all have is, what is your response to the Russian claim this morning that they are moving some troops back?  Some of the independent analysts I speak to believe that some of those troops were on the southern coast of Crimea, and wondering if you’ve seen that.  And overall, obviously, one of the messages that you and others have been sending is reassurance to the eastern flank and almost like a warning to Russia of how serious you take Article 5.  Just wondering if you think at this point Russia has received the message from the U.S. and the West that NATO will defend itself should any conflict in Ukraine spread. 

Ambassador Smith:  I think I’ll take your second question first.  So I hope that Russia has heard the message loud and clear that the Alliance is prepared to undertake all necessary measures to protect NATO territory.  That message has come through multiple channels, notably the NATO-Russia Council that I mentioned at the top, but also, as you’ve noticed, several leaders have been visiting Moscow in recent days and weeks, and I think they’ve heard that message coming from the United States and other NATO Allies.

One of the really interesting things that we’ve tried to help the Russians understand is that they have spent many years complaining about NATO troops coming closer to their border, and unfortunately it is their actions – Russian actions, Russian aggression – that has resulted in more posture moving into Central and Eastern Europe.  As you know, we enhanced NATO’s presence in Poland and the Baltic states in the wake of 2014, when Russia went into Crimea, and now, in light of what we’re seeing Russia do on the border of Ukraine and in Belarus, individual members of the Alliance have already taken steps to reinforce Central and Eastern Europe.  

So hopefully they’re getting the message and understanding how seriously both the United States and all NATO members take their commitments to Article 5 and understand that those commitments are ironclad.  

And then on your second question about the reports that the Russians are putting out, their claims that they’re now de-escalating, all I can say is that we’ll have to verify that and take a look.  You may remember in late December there were some similar claims that came out of Moscow that they were de-escalating, and in fact, facts on the ground did not support that claim.  So we want to make sure we understand what they’re talking about when they say de-escalation, and we want to verify that that is in fact what’s happening.  So stand by.  We’ll obviously take a look at that.  It just kind of hit us today.  And we’ll know more, I hope, in the next day or two.  

Question:  Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has told President Putin that he recommends diplomatic dialogue continue to be pursued.  Is the U.S. assessment that invasion could be imminent?

Ambassador Smith:  We do not understand what is inside President Putin’s head, and so we cannot make any guess about where all of this is headed.  But we have done our very best to message to them in very clear terms that, number one, we believe the best path is through dialogue and de-escalation, and we have urged them at every turn to come back to the table.  We could have another NATO-Russia Council.  We could meet at the OSCE in Vienna.  We could meet in another city in the framework of the SSD.  

So that message has been crystal-clear and repeated over and over in recent weeks, but at the same time we have had to message them with another message, and that is that we are prepared to respond if Russia chooses to go in and further invade Ukraine, that they will face severe economic consequences and that NATO will also be looking at ways they can move additional posture into Central and Eastern Europe – again, something they claim they don’t want.  So when Lavrov talks about another round of dialogue, of course we are open to that and prepared to sit down.  So I hope – I think we all hope it’s genuine, and we hope that that is what President Putin is opting to do in this moment.  

Question:  I wanted to ask about the Russian forces in Belarus.  There has been widespread concern that they might remain there.  And would you think if that happens, should that mean shifting NATO’s posture on the eastern flank accordingly and permanently?  

Ambassador Smith:  It’s hard to get into hypotheticals.  Again, we don’t know where this is headed.  We’ve been troubled by the forces moving into Belarus at a pretty rapid clip – upwards of 30,000 troops.  We’ve noted how close they are to Kyiv – about two hours away from Kyiv, in fact – and NATO has monitored this situation closely.  We discuss it regularly, not just the forces in Belarus but obviously all of the forces that they’re amassing in and around Ukraine or close to Ukraine’s borders.  

In terms of what would happen in the future, again, you can’t really answer hypothetical situations, but I will note that per my last comment, the last question I was answering, NATO is preparing for a variety of contingencies, and we do meet regularly here at 30, here in NATO Headquarters, and think through what those contingencies could be.  What will be the security requirements of Allies like Poland and the Baltic states, really across the entire eastern flank?  So that’s something we’ll continue to examine and spend a great deal of time on, no doubt, during the next two days with defense ministers.  

Question:  My question regards the future of the LPR and DPR, because there was a Russian parliamentary call today for Russia to recognize those republics.  Do you think that one realistic scenario is this kind of Georgia scenario, where they recognize LPR/DPR and move their regular forces into there under some defense pact? 

Ambassador Smith:  Well, we have noted the movement through the Duma and this desire to recognize these, quote, “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk, and the secretary general actually just spoke to this recently in his press conference, and really it’s worth repeating because I think that’s where all NATO Allies are right now, and that is that if they proceed with this, then I think it’s a clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty, and it’s also a violation of the Minsk Agreement.  And so that would obviously be a new shift in the escalation, and I think we would monitor that very closely and try to determine what we would need to do in terms of additional messaging towards the Russians on how concerned we are about that type of recognition.  

Question:   While the U.S. and NATO have said combat troops won’t be sent to Ukraine and NATO won’t fight in or for Ukraine against Russia, are you concerned that potential hostilities near NATO’s borders raises the prospect of engagement between NATO and Russia?

Ambassador Smith:  I think what we’re concerned about is, first and foremost, the buildup of Russian troops close to Ukraine’s border and all of those troops moving into Belarus and then on the eastern side of Ukraine.  We’re obviously working very closely with each member of the Alliance to determine if they have additional security requirements that need to be met.  And as I mentioned at the top, individual Allies have already taken steps to assure and deter by moving additional posture into NATO’s eastern flank. 

We don’t know what’s going to happen in the coming days and weeks.  We don’t know if Russia is going to go into Ukraine.  But what we do know is if they opted to do that, obviously NATO would have to then consider what possible adjustments it would make in response to that.  So we will take it day by day and watch and see what decision President Putin ultimately takes.  

Question:   Has there been any response by Russia to the letter offering mutual inspections of missile sites or any other points?

Ambassador Smith:  Well, both NATO and the United States originally received these two treaties from Russia with a long list of demands, and as I think everyone knows, both the United States and NATO then sent back their own letters outlining some of the things they were not willing to discuss, and then opening the door to dialogue in other categories, including on things like transparency or arms control or risk reduction.  We have not had a formal response to what we raised specifically in those letters, and we will wait to see if a letter will be forthcoming.  

But most importantly, what we need to be saying and what we say regularly to Moscow is that, look, we can spend the rest of the year going back and forth exchanging letters, but really what’s important is the best way to proceed would be for us to sit down at the table again.  We had the four-hour NATO-Russia Council here at NATO Headquarters, and NATO is open to doing that again.  And so let’s come back to the table and go back through where both sides believe there could be some areas where we could collectively focus on reciprocal commitments to European security.  And we have stated that both in bilateral channels and in multilateral channels, and that, I think, is the best way to proceed.  

Question:  Ambassador Smith, recently the United States announced that they are sending additional troops to Romania.  Can we expect more U.S. or NATO troops to Bulgaria, which also lies on the southeastern flank of NATO and is also part of the Black Sea region?  And if so, how much and when? 

Ambassador Smith:  Well, you’re right: the U.S. just recently took a decision to take about 1,000 personnel from a Stryker squadron in Germany and move them into Romania under the rubric of assure and deter.  That is a multi-mission force that can address some of the security needs that Romania has at the moment, and it supplements existing forces, U.S. forces that are already there.  

In terms of future decisions, I don’t have anything to share today.  I think what I can say is that we are continually evaluating and assessing the situation.  It’s important that defense ministers are meeting here tomorrow and Thursday – very timely meeting – and I think NATO will continue to determine whether or not additional enhancements might be necessary.  

Question:  Just to be explicit, what is the U.S. reaction to Russian announcements that some troops are being pulled back from the Ukrainian border?  Is this real, a feint, or something else?

Ambassador Smith:  We just heard the claim today, so, as I noted, what’s important is that we try to verify based on the fact that we’ve seen other instances in the past where Russia has claimed to be de-escalating and in fact, facts on the ground didn’t prove that to be true.  So I can’t say yes or no; I can’t say really anything about it at this moment because this is something that we’ll have to look at closely and verify in the days ahead.

Question:  There are plenty of calls from Baltic leaders for the U.S. to deploy additional U.S. forces in the Baltics.  Does Washington consider such action and what type of forces it could be?   

Ambassador Smith:  Again, the United States has sent about a total of 5,000 personnel to Central and Eastern Europe over the last couple of weeks, both from Germany to Romania and then from the United States to Poland and Germany.  We also have 8,500 troops in the United States that are assigned to the NATO Response Force that are now in a heightened alert posture.  

Whether or not the United States is going to be taking additional steps is not something that I have any details on.  But again, I don’t think that at the moment anyone believes that this is stagnant.  I think we’ll continue to assess, we’ll continue to look at what Russia is doing around Ukraine’s borders, and we’ll have to determine if additional steps might be necessary.  

Question:  Today we learned that the White House has alerted that some websites in – here in the United States but also in Europe are spreading misinformation.  And I’m asking because some parties, politicians, even members of government – like in Spain, where I am from – have been advancing ideas about, like, neo-Nazis being in the Government of Ukraine, about how this doesn’t have to do with democracy but a strategy, and even, like, again, one of the coalition members in Spain opposed the government’s decision that you referred at the beginning of this briefing about sending a ship to territorial waters in the area of Ukraine and Russia.  And I wanted to ask you: Is this a point of concern?  Is this – is there a concern within NATO of this type of arguments, this type of ideas getting into the public sphere within the NATO countries?  Thank you so much.  

Ambassador Smith:  Well, the good news is that over the last couple of years, we’ve all become deeply familiar with the Russian playbook.  And the Russian playbook can often involve conventional military forces and the movement of those forces, as we saw in the Donbas and Crimea, but we’ve also seen in Georgia, in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  But Russians also rely on other – what we call hybrid or gray-zone tactics, and that includes disinformation.  And so as an Alliance working both with the 30 Allies represented at NATO and with other institutions, including the European Union, I think all of us are much smarter about, first and foremost, identifying when Russia or other countries rely on disinformation.  We’ve gotten smarted about how to deter or detect the use of disinformation, and hopefully we’ve gotten smarter about preventing it.  

One of the ways that we can address it is by sharing information and sharing lessons learned in countering it and coping with it.  And there, I mean, it’s hard to name a country that hasn’t experienced this particular tool in one form or another.  

So in the case of what’s happening between Russia and Ukraine, certainly here at NATO we’ve talked about the use of disinformation.  We’ve all shared what we’re seeing and hearing.  We’ve spoken with our friends in Kyiv about the threat of disinformation.  And I think to answer your question about are we concerned, yes, we are concerned about how Russia uses this tactic, and again, are doing our very best to try and counter it.

Ambassador Smith:  No, just thank you very much for everybody joining.  I hope you’ll tune in and watch events unfolding in the next 48 hours with defense ministers here.  This is an important gathering not just because they’ll be talking about Russia-Ukraine, but we’ll also be focused on a lot of other things that NATO’s doing right now to enhance its defense and deterrence posture, and it’s having a lot of important partners meetings with Ukraine and Georgia; it’ll be engaging other partners like Finland and Sweden and even the European Union.  So this will be a busy couple of days, so do tune in and, again, come back to us at any time with any questions you might have.  Thank you.  

The U.S. is ready to participate in a genuinely open, honest dialogue with Russia, Ambassador Michael R. Carpenter, U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said during a special online briefing, Trend reports.

He recalled that the Polish chairperson-in-office of the OSCE, Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau, has launched a renewed European Security Dialogue at the OSCE, noting that “we were at a critical juncture in European security”.

The United States was represented at these talks by Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman and myself. The Deputy Secretary expressed gratitude to Poland for its leadership and vision at the OSCE, and thanked Foreign Minister Rau for his leadership in kicking off this high-level dialogue. The dialogue represents an opportunity for all 57 OSCE participating states to walk the path of diplomacy together with an aim of achieving concrete, practical results that enhance our mutual security.

“The OSCE is a critical forum. It’s the largest regional security organization in the world. It is an inclusive organization that has every country in Europe and Eurasia represented at the table. It has the political-military expertise to discuss confidence and security-building measures, concerns about conventional forces, military transparency, and risk reduction. It’s an organization that is rooted in a comprehensive concept of security that includes military, economic, and environmental and human security. And it’s an organization, importantly, that’s grounded in a set of fundamental principles as embodied in the Helsinki Final Act, the Paris Charter, the Charter for European Security, and other key documents,” said Carpenter.

The ambassador said no one thinks this is going to be an easy discussion, but it’s a necessary one, and “if we wish to avoid conflict, it’s essential”.

“The Russian Federation has made clear that it wishes to discuss indivisibility of security, and frankly, we’re ready and willing to have that discussion. As President Biden has directed us, though, we are offering Russia the opportunity to pursue the path of diplomacy and de-escalation. We’re ready to participate in a genuinely open, honest dialogue that hopefully produces concrete results by lowering tensions, providing more transparency, and building greater confidence. We’re willing, together with our partners and allies, to explore creative new ideas. But everything we do has to be grounded in respect for our core principles – the principles that all 57 OSCE states signed up to repeatedly over the last five decades and, in fact, more: sovereignty, territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes. These principles cannot be revised or renegotiated,” added Carpenter.

Below is a full rush transcript of the press conference by Ambassador Michael R. Carpenter  U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

Ambassador Carpenter:  Good afternoon.  Today the Polish chairperson-in-office of the OSCE, Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau, launched a renewed European Security Dialogue at the OSCE, noting that we were at a critical juncture in European security.  The United States was represented at these talks by Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman and myself.  The Deputy Secretary expressed gratitude to Poland for its leadership and vision at the OSCE, and thanked Foreign Minister Rau for his leadership in kicking off this high-level dialogue.  The dialogue represents an opportunity for all 57 OSCE participating states to walk the path of diplomacy together with an aim of achieving concrete, practical results that enhance our mutual security.   

The OSCE is a critical forum.  It’s the largest regional security organization in the world.  It is an inclusive organization that has every country in Europe and Eurasia represented at the table.  It has the political-military expertise to discuss confidence and security-building measures, concerns about conventional forces, military transparency, and risk reduction.  It’s an organization that is rooted in a comprehensive concept of security that includes military, economic, and environmental and human security.  And it’s an organization, importantly, that’s grounded in a set of fundamental principles as embodied in the Helsinki Final Act, the Paris Charter, the Charter for European Security, and other key documents.   

So no one thinks this is going to be an easy discussion, but it’s a necessary one, and if we wish to avoid conflict, it’s essential.  The Russian Federation has made clear that it wishes to discuss indivisibility of security, and frankly, we’re ready and willing to have that discussion.  Deputy Secretary Sherman made clear indivisibility of security does not mean one country can threaten force against another; indivisibility of security does not mean one country can invade another country’s territory; indivisibility of security does not mean one country gets to veto another country’s choice of alliances or dictate its foreign policy.   

So our message to Russia is clear:  Let’s engage in dialogue and diplomacy, not conflict and confrontation.   

The context, as I think all of you know, for today’s extraordinary OSCE meeting, it’s not lost on anyone.  Russia has amassed well over 100,000 troops on its border in one of the largest mobilizations in Europe in decades.  It is armed to the teeth with combat aircraft, attack helicopters, tanks, artillery pieces.  It’s surging ammunition and blood supplies to the border.  Russia has locked and loaded its guns and it’s pointing them at Ukraine.   

As President Biden has directed us, though, we are offering Russia the opportunity to pursue the path of diplomacy and de-escalation.  We’re ready to participate in a genuinely open, honest dialogue that hopefully produces concrete results by lowering tensions, providing more transparency, and building greater confidence.  We’re willing, together with our partners and allies, to explore creative new ideas.  But everything we do has to be grounded in respect for our core principles – the principles that all 57 OSCE states signed up to repeatedly over the last five decades and, in fact, more: sovereignty, territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes.  These principles cannot be revised or renegotiated.   

Question – “Recently, permanent representative of Russia to the OSCE, Mr. Lukashevich, said that this organization is, and I quote, ‘an amorphous structure without international legal status, and it is unable to influence the situation in the Euro-Atlantic space,’ end quote.  What do you think?  Is the OSCE still capable of impacting processes in the region?”   

Ambassador Carpenter:  I think it’s a little bit disingenuous of some of our friends to argue that the OSCE is an amorphous structure when the Russian Federation has, at the head-of-state level, I should note, signed up to numerous OSCE declarations, starting with the Helsinki Final Act, including the Paris Charter that I referenced, the Charter for European Security, the Astana Declaration, and many, many others.   

The OSCE is a platform that is inclusive, everybody gets a voice.  Sometimes it produces results, sometimes it doesn’t.  But in the past, even at the height of tensions during the Cold War, the OSCE has been able to even spin off legally binding treaties that have advanced all of our security such as the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.  It has produced the pillar of European military transparency in the form of the Vienna Document.   

And so my view is the OSCE has the potential to de-escalate tensions and even produce new forms of conventional arms control.  It takes everyone sitting at the table, demonstrating political will and the desire to de-escalate and to agree on new measures that would advance their security.   

So that’s the criterion for moving forward, but the organization itself is, in fact, ideally suited to have this conversation.     

Question :  After French President Macron’s visit to Russia, there’s been talk about how the revival of the Minsk 2 agreement could help ease tensions in Ukraine.  How could the OSCE help to facilitate the proper implementation of the Minsk Protocol, and what can we learn from OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission in eastern Ukraine considering the current state and shortcomings of Minsk 2 on the ground?”   

Ambassador Carpenter:  Well, that’s a great question, David.  The Minsk agreements in their totality, including the Minsk agreements of September 2014 and February 2015, offer a pathway to resolving the conflict in Ukraine between Russia and Ukraine.  And let’s remember that Russia is a signatory to those Minsk agreements, as is the OSCE.  And so it is incumbent on Russia to implement the portions of the agreements that speak to its responsibilities, but the OSCE also has a role to play, as does, of course, Ukraine.   

I would note that the Minsk agreements call first and foremost for settling and stabilizing the security situation on the ground.  So they call for a durable ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons from proscribed zones, and then unfettered access for the Special Monitoring Mission that is an OSCE mission throughout the territory of Ukraine.  Those key first conditions are currently not being met because the forces that Russia leads and that Russia supplies are continuing to fire on Ukrainian positions, and now we’ve got well over 14,000 lives lost as a result of this conflict.  We have heavy weapons in the proscribed zones, and we have blockages on the ability of the OSCE’s SMM mission to monitor the full entirety of the region of Ukraine, not to mention the fact that one of the key provisions of the Minsk agreements which called for monitoring – excuse me, monitoring of the international border between Russia and Ukraine, that mission on the border was vetoed by Russia last year. 

And so we’re walking further away from implementation of the Minsk agreements rather than walking closer.  And so I’m glad that President Macron raised this issue with President Putin when he visited, but we firmly believe and we support Ukraine’s position that the resolution of the conflict lies in full implementation of those agreements.   

Question :  What areas of common ground on European security are emerging between the U.S. and Russia?  Has there been progress on agreeing rules of the road on military exercises, missile launcher deployment, troop deployments, locations of military bases, or other areas?

Ambassador Carpenter:  Well, we, the United States, have put on the table a number of proposals both in our bilateral channel at the NATO-Russia Council and now we’re launching this dialogue here at the OSCE.  And we’ve addressed a wide range of possibilities of reciprocal transparency measures regarding offensive weapons systems in Ukraine as well as measures to increase confidence regarding military exercises and manoeuvres in Europe, potential arms control measures related to missiles in Europe; and then we’ve also tabled, of course, our interest in a follow-on agreement to New START that covers all nuclear weapons, as well as ways to increase transparency and stability.   

So we’ve put quite a bit on the table.  For now, we are waiting for the Russian side to show whether it is interested in engaging on those issues or not.  And we are open, again, to having this discussion bilaterally at NATO and at OSCE.  We believe that all those issues that impinge on the security of the other 56 OSCE members should be discussed in the OSCE.  We should have that conversation where everybody is able to sit at the table.  And so right now we’re waiting for Russia to engage.    

Question :   Mr. Ambassador, when do you expect the next round of talks on Russia’s security proposals to take place at the OSCE?

Ambassador Carpenter:  Well, What I would say is that this extraordinary launch of a renewed European Security Dialogue today was at the initiative of the chairperson-in-office, Foreign Minister Rau.  Now, obviously Russia has made a number of proposals and has tabled texts in the recent past, the last few weeks.  But this proposal was done after extensive consultations with other OSCE participating states, not just Russia but including Russia, of course, but many others as well.   

And the Polish chairpersonship has focused on three broad clusters in which the discussion is going to be oriented.  The first has to do with confidence-building measures, military transparency, and conventional arms control.  The second has to do with conflict-resolution processes, conflict prevention and conflict resolution.  And then the third has to do with nonmilitary and comprehensive aspects of security, to include energy security, to include environmental security, and human security, importantly, including human rights.  And so we plan to have this discussion in all of those three clusters or all of those three tracks, if you like, going forward.  And Russia is certainly invited to come and put all of its concerns and all of its ideas on the table together with everybody else, and we will move forward.   

Question :  U.S. officials say that Russia has two paths.  Secretary of State Antony Blinken describes a path of diplomacy and dialogue or massive consequences.  After this statement and from yesterday’s and today’s meeting, what is your impression?  Which path has Russia chosen?  For example, French President Macron said there are crucial days ahead after the Putin summit.  Thank you.”   

Ambassador Carpenter:  Well, thanks for the question.  As I noted earlier in my opening comments, Russia has amassed an unprecedented force on its border with Ukraine as well as in Belarus – well over 100,000 troops on its own border with Ukraine and up to 30,000 troops, if not more, inside Belarus.  It’s armed to the teeth.  It has everything from artillery and attack helicopters to combat aircraft and every manner of enablers that’s poised and ready to attack if the order is given. 

So you’d have to ask President Putin what he intends to do next.  We have made clear that we are sharpening the choices for the Kremlin.  We’re offering our preferred path, which is the path of diplomacy and dialogue, including here at the OSCE, but also, as I’ve said earlier, at NATO and bilaterally, and we’re willing to engage on all the concerns that Russia wants to put on the table.  We’re of course going to put our concerns on the table too, together with those of our partners and allies.  But we’re willing to have that conversation in an honest and open manner.   

Now, on the flip side, if Russia chooses the path of military escalation – God forbid, but if it does – then we’re prepared to impose what have been described as massive and unprecedented consequences.  And by “we,” I mean not just the United States but the entire G7, the entire North Atlantic Alliance, NATO, as well as the European Council, which has also coordinated very closely with the United States.   

So the choice is President Putin’s to make, and I don’t – I can’t tell you what choice he’s going to take.  But that is, roughly speaking, the sharpened choices that we have presented going forward.   

Question :   Do you believe Hungary’s deference to Russia in recent weeks has empowered the Kremlin?  And do you expect the OSCE’s recommendation of an election observation mission to Hungary to affect that government’s actions with regards to Russia?

Ambassador Carpenter:  I’ll take your second question first, which is that no, I do not expect the OSCE’s recommendation to have a full election observation mission in Hungary will have any consequences with regards to our Hungarian allies’ orientation vis-à-vis Russia.  I think they have said they will welcome the OSCE mission and we hope it does its job just like OSCE election observation missions do in every country where they deploy.   

As for the first part of your question, I will note that Prime Minister Orban did travel to Moscow and had an extensive meeting with President Putin.  We believe that our Hungarian allies would be very concerned if Russia was again to violate borders in the heart of Europe, meaning specifically the borders of Ukraine.  They have said that they support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and today at the renewed European Security Dialogue they have endorsed the process that was launched by Foreign Minister Rau.   

So we hope that they continue to forcefully advocate for dialogue and diplomacy, which we also believe in.   

Question :  How long is this discussion within the OSCE scheduled to endure?  What kind of OSCE resources will it require?  And has Russia already committed to supplying the OSCE secretariat with the resources required to conduct these discussions? 

Ambassador Carpenter:  Well, this is an open-ended dialogue.  There is no specific end date to this process.  We’re willing to sit down and have these discussions for as long as it takes, and we’re ready to dive in and drill down very deep on the specific issues.  One of the reasons why the OSCE is an ideal format in which to have these talks is because we have, as I said earlier, the military and political-military expertise to be able to discuss military transparency and confidence building and risk reduction.   

And that expertise, most of it is resident here in the forms of our arms control delegates and our delegations that participate every week in discussions on these topics.  And so we don’t need additional resources to be able to pursue this dialogue; this is essentially what the OSCE was created to do in the first place, beginning with the CSCE process that was launched in the mid-1970s with the negotiation of the Helsinki Final Act all the way through to today.  So we’re prepared to extend this offer to have the dialogue for as long as it needs to happen so that we can hopefully have some space to arrive at common ground.   

Question :  President Biden said that most of those demands are non-starters, and he also reflected that right now that has generally been the view of much of NATO and OSCE as well.  So what is there for Moscow and Washington to talk about today?  

Ambassador Carpenter:  Let me clarify.  So what we have said consistently for many, many weeks and months now is that there is no trade space on the core principles of the international order, and that means no trade space on sovereignty, on territorial integrity, on no allowance for spheres of influence, no ability of one state to veto another state’s foreign policy or its decision whether to join or not join alliances.  That’s all off the table.  

But what is on the table is a discussion in detail on issues like missile placement in Europe, which we’re prepared to have in a bilateral context, of course in consultation with our allies and partners; also a discussion of military transparency, which we think the OSCE is the right forum to have that discussion; also confidence-building measures, which could be discussed both in NATO or at the OSCE.  There’s any number of ideas pertaining to conventional arms control writ large in the broadest meaning of that term that we would be happy to discuss with Russia if they want to get down and have a serious discussion of specifics.   

As I said earlier, we’re willing to drill down on those topics, but we’re not willing to entertain dilutions or renegotiations of our core principles.   

Question :  Thank you very much.  And I believe we have time for one more question, and we have two questions on this topic so we’ll go to Paul Shinkman from U.S. News and World Report again.  And the question is this:  “How can the U.S. be so definitive that Nord Stream 2 will be shut down if Russia invades since Germany itself has not stated definitively that it would do so?  And have you seen any indication that President Biden’s assertions yesterday about the pipeline have had any effect on the Kremlin?”   

Ambassador Carpenter:  Well, I can tell you that the President was extremely clear that if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.  And we – he had very good meetings with the German chancellor in Washington, and we have had extensive consultations with our German allies over the course of the last many, many weeks and months, in fact since July of last year where we arrived at an agreement in terms of Russia’s use of energy and how that impacts European security.  And we’re going to continue to have those consultations as we go forward.   

Ambassador Carpenter:  Thanks.  I don’t have much in the way of closing remarks.  Let me just reiterate what I repeated earlier on a couple occasions, which is that this is a critical inflection point, and we believe there is a path forward that is a diplomatic path and that will entertain serious conversations about European security and how we can lower tensions and strengthen confidence-building measures and strengthen transparency and find ways potentially to have reciprocal restraint.  But we hope that Russia joins this process because the alternative, frankly, is a disaster for European security; it’s a humanitarian disaster; and it’s a strategic catastrophe for Russia because it will set Ukraine even further and more staunchly against Russia for decades and generations to come if there is, in fact, a Russian military escalation in the near term. 

And so we’re prepared either way, but we are offering this path of diplomacy and dialogue as an alternative, and it’s a serious one.  Thanks very much for joining.   

Moderator:  Thank you very much, Ambassador Carpenter, and thank you to all of our journalists for their questions.  Shortly we’ll be sending the audio recording of the briefing to all the participating journalists and we’ll provide a transcript as soon as it is available.