0 we hand-off to martha. >> john: did you say something? >> sandra: we're looking live at the pentagon where we're expecting an update on what the u.s. military will say as their react to vladimir putin and his next move. >> john: russia saying they're backing off and u.s. officials say don't believe it for a second. good to be with you, sandra. >> sandra: you too. i'm sandra smith. >> john: and i'm john roberts. "the story" with martha starts right now. >> martha: thanks. i'm martha maccallum at fox news head quarters in new york. here's the story. a lot is moving at this hour. a lot of updates from the pentagon and the white house. those are moments away. the white house obviously a lot of editorials today questioning the president's abilities and it's coming from the "wall street journal," the "washington post" and coming under continued scrutiny. this photo shows him holding verbatim notes on how to answer the regime change blush. and russians is they're backing off in kyiv. president zelensky says the west is too afraid of taking on putin. today also on that same front, our exclusive interview with the former president of ukraine who tells us what ukraine must get in any negotiation. he believes that he was poisoned nearly to death by putin in 2004 as any reports surfaced that there may be poisoning going on again during these negotiation talks. it's quite an amazing story. pete hegseth is here with us and michael mccaul standing by. we're going to stop in at the white house with peter doocy to get the latest. >> martha, the president wants people talking about mixed messages from russia. they're claiming to be pulling people out of kyiv with the call of the leaders of the u.k., france and italy, nobody is sure. >> there's a consensus that let's just see what they have to offer. we'll find out what they do. meantime, we're going to continue to keep strong sanctions. >> there was no consensus in real time last week about what the president meant when he appeared to call for putin's removal, something that he insists he never said or what the president meant when he explained what he would ordfer a chemical weapon was deployed by russia. >> you said a chemical weapon used by russia would trigger a response in kind. >> it will trigger a significant response. >> what does that mean? >> i'm not going to tell you. i wouldn't tell you. you have to be silly. >> the world wants to know. >> world wants to know a lot of things. >> that's true. that's among the greatest concerns for the president's republican critics now. >> sadly mixed messages and confusion have been one of the only consistent threads running through this administration's foreign policy from the very start. >> we know -- >> martha: peter, thank you. we want to go to the pentagon amount lot of questions about what's going on with this supposed negotiation. john kirby is at the podium. let's listen in. >> i think it's really important that we put a little in to context. first, again, we've seen that russia has attempted now for going on a month to sell this war of theirs to this domestic audience as liberation of the donbas. however, the intensified rhetoric the last year and the lead-up to russia's invasion demonstrated that the kremlin's real intent was to overthrow the democratically elected government and to occupy or annex large portions of ukraine. the posture of russian forces around kyiv along much of the black and the azov sea coast and central and northeast ukraine indicates the geographic scale of this ambition. russia's intent wanted to create people's republics as displayed recently in the khersan pro tense. kyiv and the capitol city was a key objective for the russians. so we ought not be fooling and nobody should be fooling ourselves by the kremlin's recent claim that it will suddenly just reduce military attacks near kyiv or any reports that it's going to withdrawal all of its forces. has there been some movement by some russian units away from kyiv in the last day or so? yeah, we think so. small numbers. but we believe that this is a repositioning, not a real withdrawal. we all should be prepared to watch for a major offensive against other areas of ukraine. it does not mean that the threat to kyiv is over. russia has failed in its objective of capturing kyiv, failed in its objective of subjugating ukraine. but they can still inflict massive brutality on the country including on kyiv. we see that even today and continued air strikes against the capitol city. mr. putin's goals stretch far beyond the donbas. the russian ministry of defense's talking points may be an effort to move the goal posts, moderating their goals and spinning the current lack of progress as part of what would be next steps. but it's too early to judge what additional actions the kremlin may take. no amount of spin can mask what the world has witnessed the past month. the courage and military prowess of ukraine's armed forces and its people, which is proving to be more than what russia bargained for. that prowess is not accidental. we talked about that a little bit. it's partly the respect of the training that we and other allies have been giving to the ukrainian armed forces. the united states with its allies and partners will continue to provide that support to meet their security needs as they bravely stand up to this russian aggression. i thought it was important to set the level straight there on that. i've seen lots of reporting on the so-called withdrawals. in other news, belacatan started this week. it's a bilateral exercise with the u.s. armed forces and the philippines. it's a key component of our alliance. the exercise features planning, activities and operations that increase both our nation's capabilities to provide for the mutual defense. exercise opportunities will occur at multiple locations throughout the philippines and consist of three primary components. joint events and combined interoperabilities vents and humanitarian and civic efforts. with more than 3,800 members of the armed forces of the philippines and 5,100 u.s. service members, this will be the largest iteration of belacatan to date. we forward to a meaningful exercise and great for that terrific relationship that we have with the armed forces of the philippines. last but not least today, the final covid-19 respond teams and active duty status that are supporting 59 cities across 30 states completed their mission at the university of utah hospital in salt lake constituent. since the on set of the outbreak, more than 24,000 military members and active duty status have provided an effort to the whole of government. this included 5,800 military medical providers, more than 5,000 military medical personnel administering vaccines at federal community vaccination centers as well as military personnel that assisted citizens when they repatriated back to the u.s. in the early days of the outbreak. in january of this year, the department activated more than 1,000 service members in support of the president's direction to mobilize additional personnel. dod deployed 700 who supported 25 hospitals and 14 states just from january to march. the rest of these military members were on standby throughout that time period ready to deploy at the request of fema if they were required. it's important to note that while the title 10 covid-19 response may have come to a close as of this morning, there's more than 10,800 national guard soldiers and air men supporting covid-19 response efforts in 43 states, territories and district of columbia. the secretary wants to take this opportunity to pass on his personal gratitude and that of all senior leaders for the extraordinary work that the men and women of this department have done throughout the pandemic and certainly? just the last few months to work so hard in support of our civilian medical practitioners. with that, we'll take questions. bob? >> thank you. on ukraine, when you say you are seeing small numbers of russian troops moving, you say they're repositioning. would that be by small, do you mean less than a battalion tactical group? >> this is very early on. we don't have a number estimate. it's certainly not a significant chunk of the multiple battalion tactical groups that russia has arrayed against kyiv. so we can confirm that we've seen a small number start to reposition. i'd be reticent to put a unit on it. it's not nearly where near the majority of the units in kiev. >> are they moving like north to belarus or repositioning for what you described as an offensive somewhere else? >> i would say at this early stage, we see the movement more northward. it's too early to tell what the destination is, what the final purpose is and you know, where exactly these troops are going to go long-term. we believe, we believe, we assess, that it is likely more repositioning to be used elsewhere in ukraine. where exactly? we don't know. i would note the russians themselves have said in the same breath they're saying they're withdrawing, that they're reprioritizing the donbas area eastern ukraine. >> so it could move there. >> that's a question better put to the russian ministry of defense if they will ever give you a straight answer. they have said themselves that they're reprioritizing that part of ukraine. >> you mentioned if they're re -- have you seen any signs that russia is pulling back sending supplies in to ukraine? are they continuing their own convoys of moving supplies, fuel, food or if they stopped doing that and just the troops? >> very early stages here. they just recently in the last few hours made this proclamation. we have seen a small number move away from kyiv. that's about the most i can give you. i don't have any information on their resupply efforts for troops that are still arrayed against kyiv. i would remind that the russians still have a significant majority of their assembled combat power to include logistics and sustainment capability inside ukraine. >> trying to understand something. if you're talking about small number, you think just what you're seeing now or do you think there's going to be more numbers because you're saying they might be pulling out these forces to redeploy somewhere else. are they going to redeploy at the beginning -- >> a great question. i don't know. all i can tell you is what we're seeing. we're seeing a small number now that appears to be moving away from kyiv. this on the same day that the russians say they're withdrawing. we're not prepared to call this a retreat or withdrawal. >> do they still have enough forces on the ground around kyiv in case they decided to basically relaunch some kind of attack on the city? >> again, i'm not going to predict what the russian military plan is here. my question to bob, very small numbers that we've seen move at this point. they still have the vast majority of the forces that they had assembled around kiev are still there. as i said before, we largely assess that they're in a defensive posture. they have several days ago stopped trying to advance on kyiv and took up defensive positions. >> three questions, please. can you update -- >> let me start writing. >> can you update us on the number of missiles that russia has launched in to ukraine at this point? >> i don't have an update on the missiles. we know that they have -- since the beginning of this launched more than 1,000, but i don't have an exact number. >> secondly, does the pentagon consider russia a competitor? >> i think you can take away from what we talked about yesterday when we release the budget. we talked about russia as an acute threat. that's how we look at them. >> that's not the same as what you've been saying. you've been saying your competitor is russia and china. now we here acute threat. has it changed? >> we consider russia as an acute threat based on what we've seen happen the last month. >> okay. my last question is about ukraine's proposal. seems like they envision some sort of security guarantee like article 5 with nato with a country like poland or turkey or canada. so my question is toes the pentagon think that that is feasible? these are nato country. establishing some sort of collective defense with the nato country would essentially bring in all of nato. >> we're not going to get ahead of where ukraine and russia are on their discussions. this has to be a negotiation between russia and ukraine. we're not going to get in the middle of that or get ahead of where that is right now. i would say a couple of things. one, russia should negotiate in good faith. they have an opportunity here. an opportunity that they have missed many, many times over the last month to end this war and do it responsibly. we hope they do that. the war could end today if mr. putin did withdraw all of his forces from ukraine and respect ukrainian sovereignty. again, as for what that settlement looks like, that is really between russia and ukraine. we wouldn't dictate the terms. >> as i understand, military tactics when you retreat, you leave forces in place to cover the retreat. so are the movements that you're seeing so far, are they consistent with what a retreat from kyiv would look like? what would it take to convince the pentagon that russia had given up on its intent to seize kyiv? >> too soon to tell on the first question, this is hours old here that the russians made this announcement. we've seen small news of troops begin to move away from kyiv. way too soon to make a judgment on covering forces and that kind of thing. i think what would it take for us to believe it? i'd go back to my answer to carla. it would be to see them take all of their forces out of ukraine, move them out, get them back to home station and negotiate in good faith. it's just too soon to know based on what they said today who their real intent is here. we believe, put another way, that this is really more of a piece of repositioning. again, we're basing some of that on the clear indications that they are reprioritizing in the donbas. >> i'm going to take another run at the acute threat, russia being an acute threat. does that change in language signal a change in russia's priority level for the department? in your summary documents, it's losted after china. does it still occupy the same priority level or has it gone up or gone down? >> the threat posed by russia has remained a priority here at the department. if you asked me to rack and stack it like, you know, a baseball card collection, i'm not going to do that. clearly we assess russia to be an acute threat. we've been pretty clear about that. you don't have to look any further than what you've seen them do the last 30 days to see that we're justified in labelling them such. again, you've said it yourself. it's pretty clear in the points that we delivered since delivering the budget yesterday, and in our strategy that russia remains a significant issue for the department. >> if i could follow up on the covid title 10 funding. can you tell us about that? >> to end the support? >> yes. >> we were doing this in support of fema in an interagency effort. we took our guidance from fema. >> the reduction -- >> yeah. the conditions are better in the country. the need for -- remember what we were doing was taking the pressure off of civilian practitioners so they could do the treatment. most of our medical personnel that were operating in hospitals were not really doing covid treatment. they were taking the pressure off of other burdens. that pressure was appreciated and welcomed. it has been alleviated in concert with fema and civilian practitioners. we deemed collectively now is the right time to pull back that support. i want to say again as i said in my opening statement, northern command stands ready in case there's more need. we can flex. we didn't even deploy all of the troops that we put on readiness to do this mission. so we could flex up again if needed. this pandemic is a living thing and changes over time. we're grateful for the chance that we had to contribute to this. we'll stand by and stay ready. again, at the risk of sounding redundant, i want to also point out the fact that you still have, you know, more than 10,000 national guardsmen that are still at it in the states. nancy. >> i'd like to go back to the repositioning. have you seen any territorial losses or contested areas around kyiv for russia since their repositioned their forces? have you seen any change in the amount or type of missile strikes that russia has launched on kyiv that you feel would be tied to this repositioning or focus towards the donbas? >> we have seen the ukrainians push back to the west of kyiv where the ukrainians have taken ground. i don't have a list of the towns but we have seen them retake some territories to the west of kyiv. be -- we talked about this a week ago, to the east of kyiv. the russians were on the outskirts of brovary. the ukrainians pushed them back 50 kilometers away from the city. we have seen them do that around kyiv, again to the west and to the east. i don't have a breakdown of the air strikes that are happening. i couldn't give you like a number over the course of time. we do continue to see kyiv being struck from the air. so the threat to kyiv is not over. >> the repositioning in donbas has not manifested in terms of a market change and the strikes on the capitol. is that -- >> i can't quantify it, nancy, over the course of a day or two. i don't have a count of how many strikes are happening on kyiv. we've never given you that because we tonight have it. we do continue to see strikes on kyiv. so it's -- we're not convinced that the threat to the capitol city has been radically diminished by this proclamation. barbara, did you have one? >> could you give us a sense of russian forces are spread evenly throughout ukraine or how many groups are concentrated against kyiv versus the east and how you have seen that shift. >> yeah, i've been very careful not to lay out russian operations. it not prudent for me to do it and we don't have exact details of where every battalion tactical group is. i couldn't tell you how many trooped are arrayed in the donbas. what i can tell you is the vast majority of the assembled force that we saw against kyiv is still there. we have only seen a small number begin to move away from kyiv. mostly to the north. we'll watch this over the course of the coming days and to the degree we can describe for you what we're seeing, we'll do that we have seen even before the russians said that they were going to prioritize the donbas, we saw them pick up the pace there. more aggressive operations, more active campaigning against towns and villages in the donbas. that continues today. the donbas has been a hot war for the last eight years. we have seen the intenity pick up. where that goes, we don't know. we've seen the ukrainians be just as active in the donbas as trying to push back on the russias there. >> can you get us a sense that they put the bulk of their forces against kyiv or -- >> i don't want to give you a breakdown here. we've been talking about a month for the three main axis of approach by the russians. north, northeast, kyiv, kharkiv, all really -- that whole northern grouping was designed against the capitol city. the effort to cut off kyiv. the east, the donbas, which again has been a hot war for eight years and then in the south. in the south, we've been talking about coming out of crimea, they split to the northwest and to the northeast. to the northeast against mariupol, which obviously there's a lot of heavy fighting going on there. you've seen that for yourselves. and to the northwest out of crimea in an attempt -- what we saw is an attempt to take another town, which they have not done. you seep the ukrainians are actually scramming it out for khersan as well. those are the three main groupings, three main lines of effort. up until recently, we assessed that that was their plan, was to, as i said, to occupy and annex ukraine using approaches on the three lines of effort. we think they're going to prioritize the east. they have been stalled in the north. the progress in the early days that they made in the south, they made progress. now that is stalled out. we see them prioritizing the east. i couldn't quantify that for you. i don't have their order on that level of detail. let me go to someone on the phone. i haven't done that yet. is. >> can you talk about the president's comments yesterday when he said that u.s. troops -- he said that u.s. troops are training ukrainian military inside poland. what kind of training are they providing and how long has that been going on? >> yeah, i think general walters dealt with this pretty well in his hearing this morning front of the senate armed services committee. there's some liaisoning going on as ukrainians go in to poland, for instance, and they are -- were transposing shipments of material to them. so there's some general liaisoning going on in that record. that's what the president referring to. jane? >> thank you. why don't i come back to you. would that be fair? we'll do that. i promise. i'll get back to you. >> one more question from kyiv. from a military perspective, does the pentagon think that the russian forces attempt -- western forces were defeated in their attempt to take kyiv -- >> i said as much in my opening statement. they failed to take kyiv. >> that's a defeat. >> they failed to take kyiv. we believe that kyiv was a key objective for them. >> you talked about small numbers leaving. did you note the small numbers leaving before the russians made public their proposal today that this was being done in good faith? in other words, the words following actions that you have already seen taking place -- >> i couldn't give you a time, louis, like whether it was exactly the moment that the russians decided to announce it, same day kind of observation. but we're not taking anything that they say at face value. it being as honest as i can. small number. we're not prepared to buy the russian argument that it's a withdrawal. again, our assessment is their intention is to reposition forces and bolster their efforts elsewhere. >> in other words, it's been accurate to what you have described? >> i'm comfortable with the way i characterized it. >> thanks, kirby. i want to -- i feel like you're describing -- sounds like you're describing -- it's been almost five weeks now and sounds like you're describe ago fail military campaign. would you go that far or is that too much? what we're seeing now is this a failure by -- is it a failed military campaign? >> i don't think we're prepared to slam a bumper sticker on this thing right now. >> sandra: there's still people dying, still bombs falling and missiles flying. there's still give and take on the battlefield. i don't think we're ready to call it one way or another here. what i would tell you is that as i said in my opening statement, they failed to take kyiv, which we believe was a key objective. again, you have to look at what they tried to do in the early days to see that they wanted kyiv. they didn't get it. in the last few days, they hunkered down in defensive positions, stopped advancing. now they're saying and we're seeing small numbers move ha -- move away. they have not taken kharkiv. they have not taken mariupol. while we assess they took kherson, that is back in play. so youcount the azov coast, even that is contested. you saw the ukrainians basically sank one of their amphibious ships in the port. so not only do they not manage to take kyiv, they've not taken any population centers and the ukrainians are fighting back very hard. so it's hard to see how they are succeeding in any one play except at the death and destruction that they're causing to these population centers and to the civilian population. that is something that we can't lose sight of. >> so about 14,000 troops you guys have committed to sending to europe in one way or another for nato or for individual countries. there's a few thousand left over for who has been sent. are you still trying to get up to the 14,000 number or are you still looking to source units to get there and do the peace talks have any bearing on whether you're thinking you're going to send more people or not? >> yeah, it's not like the 14,000 is a goal here. the secretary wanted as many options available to him and to the president. so we put someone prepared to deploy, sent some forward. it's about options. it's not about a number goal. it about capabilities and making sure that we have the right capabilities. we're constantly reviewing that. not that you asked this, but as a matter of fact, i can let you know that you all been tracking the marine corps exercise response in norway. i can tell you a command and control unit for marine air control group 28, which is based at cherry point, has now been repositioned to lithuania. that is about 200 people. they finished the exercise in lithuania now. about 10 marine corps f-18 hornets from beaufort, south carolina and that couple of marine corps c-130s are now going to be repositioned to eastern europe. i don't have an exact destination. they're going to be repositioned. that's another 200 personnel. we're trying to stay flexible here. yesterday we talked about some growlers coming out of wouldby island. it's based on constant conversations with our nato allies. >> are those marine nato response force committed or are they just individuals? >> right now these are individual decisions based on avail able capability that we had and in talking to our nato allies. i don't -- as you probably saw in the nato summit, they announced another four battle groups and the nations are filling them out. we're leading the one in poland. other nations, france, is leading romania. they're still filling these houtd. okay. you've been patient. >> i have been told about north korea icbm launch. the pentagon -- [inaudible] why did pentagon -- [inaudible] >> why did we refuse to fire an immediate response? >> with south korea and united states supposedly join fire training response to the north korea -- the pentagon refuse to -- south korea, don't do this. why did you do that? why pentagon -- >> i'm not -- >> the pentagon chooses to fire immediate response to north korea. that is -- >> i haven't seen the story. i'm not sure what you mean by fire and immediate response. i'm not sure what that means. look -- >> north korea, they launch the icbms. north korea said 111 minutes later. why took so late to -- >> you mean the statement that we issued? >> yes. >> look, we respond with the time and care that we believe is required baseon these provocations. there's no ill-intent to our south korean allies here. they're a sovereign nation. if they want to issue a response on their time line, we respect that. we responded -- i know we responded in a way that we felt was appropriate to our own initial analysis of the launch. look, let's not get hung up on who is issuing a statement first or whether it's together or whether we say the right things. let's focus on the real issue here, security on the korean peninsula and the fact that the alliance is strong and that we constantly consult with south korea about readiness and that we did make a statement. we did note it. oh, by the way, in recent weeks, we've changed the way we're going isr there in an around the peninsula because of recent provocations by the north. >> i have another one. >> of course. >> u.s. and south korea are analyzing north korea icbm. north korea claims it's a 17. do you know why this information is so different between north korea and united states? >> i will tell you that we assessed that that launch was a probable icbm. we continue to analyze the test in close coordination with our allies and partners to incrude the south koreans. i don't have an update beyond that. >> the administration often has its constructed answered against the north korea missile threat. i understand that fully. beyond those constructive answers, is there anything that you can tell us about your concerns about the most recent missile test given the distance and altitude that the north koreans achieved. your concerns about the threat, that kind of missile capability, that they successfully achieved poses and can you tell us anything about your latest assessment about potential activity at their underground nuclear test site. >> i'm not going to talk about intelligence assessments, barbara. i think you know that. and we're still, as i said, analyzing this last test. i'm not going to get ahead of that process. we've been very clear about the threat that north korean ballistic missile program poses to the region and that includes their continued advancements to the nuclear program. i'm not going to speak about intelligence. we remain concerned about the north koreans, their attempt to continue to improve their nuclear capability as well as their ballistic missile capability. its provocative. it poses a threat to security on the peninsula and to the region, our allies and partners. if you ask me are we concerned about it. absolutely we are. >> you said concerns about their efforts to improve their nuclear capabilities. >> every time you test, you learn. every time you test, you learn. >> okay. you said improve their nuclear capability. that's different than a missile. >> it is. >> are you seeing -- are you saying you're seeing them work -- >> i'm not speaking to press reports that i've seen out there about potential future tests. we know this is a program that they want to improve. so of course, we're concerned about efforts to do that. >> last week secretary austin and south koreasecretary have a telephone conversation. do you know what particular talking about north korea, next month trying -- >> i'm not going to get into intelligence assessments about specifics on the north korean program. i read that call out. i'm not going beyond that read-out. let me go to reuters. >> hi, john. following up on courtney's question about the ukrainian forces when the handover of weapons happened. can you specify? is it a pat on the back or this is how you use the weapons? >> it's general liaison with them as the shipments are handed over. i don't have exact details of every conversation. of course, there's interactions as these ukrainian soldiers take possession of some of this gear and this kit. i really don't have more detail than that. alex horton. "washington post." >> yeah, can you go back to a follow and come back? thanks. >> follow up, is that different from training in anyway when you have liaison with them? >> i think it's not training in the classic sense that many people think of training. i would just say it's liasing. alex. >> thanks. so i'm curious about what senior defense officials told us last week about indications that the russians are being more aggressive in the east. >> martha: watching john kirby at the pentagon. we want reaction from congressman mike mccaul, the top ranking republican on the foreign affairs committee who traveled to the ukrainian border where he met with officials and secretary blinken and refugees there. good to have you with us today. >> thanks, martha. >> martha: interesting. basically john kirby is saying that kyiv was the key military objective and they failed there. but then he also sort of cam back around and said no one should be foolish enough to think that the offenses are over. what do you think? >> well, i think to some extent he's correct. putin tried to bite off more than he could chew. he's realizing that now. with kyiv, russians have been in a defensive posture, not offensive because they're getting beat back by the ukrainians who they had no idea that they could fight like this. they were trained by the green berets and the skilled fighting force. while it looks like it could be a retreat, martha and they're going to reposition and reconstitute in the east in donbas to mariupol, to form the land bridge to crimea to set themselves up for negotiation the ukrainians to claim legitimacy to that area. we still have to get the anti-missile technology weapons systems in. to this date, we have yet to get enough and they have a few left. that's what is really pounding them right now. >> i'm wondering how putin spins this at home. this loss of kyiv. if it turns out to be that. i spoke with victor yuschenko a little later or maybe tomorrow. he said don't be fooled here. they're rebuilding at this point. also, putin has to spin this for people at home that have liaisoning thousands of russian soldiers and potentially their main objective. >> yeah, he's embarrassed. he said this would be over in four days. it's day 35. hes that to talk to his own people. that i have let their own soldiers to just rot on the battlefield. they're not even bringing the body bags home because they don't want to the mothers to see. they lost 10,000 troops. more than they lost in afghanistan. more than we lost in 20 years in iraq and afghanistan. so there's face-saving where he can use his propaganda to claim a victory somewhat. what i fear most moving forward is a bloody conflict in the donbas. what we're seeing right now in addition to the russian troops or the mercenaries, they are the worst of the worst and they're moving thousands of them in to the donbas. that's where you'll see the action tank place and the russians retreating out of kyiv. >> martha: he said that was the original objective, to liberate that area. suddenly they were attacking on all sides. it's interesting to see what the reaction to putin over time. they're not bringing home the dead soldiers because of the reaction they'll get at home. thanks, congressman mccaul. good to have you here. >> thanks for having me. >> we've received this update from the pentagon. at the same time, we have the white house briefing going on. jacqui heinrich was there pressing kate bettingfield on president biden's comments on training u.s. ukrainian forces. watch this. >> did the president accidentally reveal a previously unknown effort for the u.s. to be training ukrainian forces in poland during his answer? the press conference? >> no. the troops that he met with in poland routinely interact with ukrainians that is something that is none. many of you were on the trip with us. that is known. that is not compromised information. that being said, there's nothing further that i have to say beyond what the president said yesterday. >> martha: let's bring in pete hegseth "fox and friends" co-host. you been listening to this throughout. your reaction to this and jacqui's question. >> i'll start with jacqui's question. you heard john kirby address that, talking and liaisoning. very vague language about what troops are doing to help in poland. all of that because of another misstatement of joe biden in front of the troops soon you'll see women standing in front of tanks. he's talking about ukraine. they're trying to back their way into a justification just as him saying this is not a regime change policy change. that's part of what they're trying to explain today. it's amazing we're two, three days away and unwaneding the missteps. you want a strong message from the commander-in-chief. there's moments that you step back and they're astonishing. if you remember two days, two, three days into this, sort of group think was putin is going to have kyiv in just a matter of days. it's only a matter of time. >> martha: general milley said that. >> here we are and you have john kirby standing at the podium saying that they failed to take kyiv. it's an astonishing failure by vladimir putin. you know he'sed infuriated by it, embarrassed by it. he announced a new phase a couple days ago. now they're saying in order to bring about peace negotiations, they're repositioning troops and pulling away from kyiv. it's a recognition that it didn't work. donbas was important to them. the south and the land bridge is important. maybe they will focus there. they may try to go into a quiet phase. they were shocked trying to go to the capitol with the 40-mile convoy. they may count on us tuning our focus somewhere else. as the world turns its head away, if it does, as the war goes on and on. we're talking about did chris rock know jada pinkett smith -- >> martha: they love that. >> if we're talking about that, vladimir putin wants the lights to go out and the special operators to go in and consolidate the gains that he made. >> martha: which maybe would have been the smarter military move in the beginning, which is what he said he was going to do to recognize the independence of that area. before i let you go, this is the other fear. when you're corners and humiliating this leader who has the largest nuclear weapons cache in the world and chemical and biological weapons as well, what is the fear of that in kyiv? >> and a history of using them when his back was against the wall. so there's no declaration of victory. kirby was right to say that. you can't predict what you can't predict. with his back against the wall and pulling troops in, could he be preparing for something else. he can't go home with a loss. russian leaders that lose don't stick around. >> martha: they're not welcomed home. >> with tens of thousands of russian soldiers. >> martha: maybe as many of eight as his generals that have been killed here. >> god bless the ukrainians. salute them. >> martha: think about zelensky who was holed up in this underground bunker. making appearances every day. thanks, pete. you heard john kirby saying that russia is repositioning. i spoke with victor yuschenko. here's what was asked on what both sides are demanding and willing to give up. >> i think we have different tasks putin was talking about fixed conditions that ukraine has to fulfill. today putin is not talking about these conditions. because he received a defeat in his blitzkrieg. this would have made him enter the negotiation process. we shouldn't forget the wore is ongoing. and the goal of the negotiations is to reach the truth and how to achieve it. there's three important parts. number 1, this requires on land and on sea. human corridors. third is the maximum -- the withdrawal of the military forces. and return to the territorial integrity and politintegrity that existed in ukraine as of 1991. >> martha: it seems unlikely that putin would agree to any negotiation in which he got nothing. if he doesn't get to hold on to crimea. you think he would agree to those points for negotiation? evidently he will not be generous. he will be using these negotiations process, you know, in order to relocate his forces. and using the time to come up with a new tactic in the south and east of ukraine. so dragging it on. >> i would not trust any action or any word that comes from putin these days. >> martha: very interesting from viktor yushchenko, the former president was of ukraine. right now armed police guarding the palace in istanbul. this is an image of the room where talks took place with russia. jeff paul is live with more. hi, jeff. >> the russian delegation claims that they will be withdrawing troops from kyiv as a way to increase and establish trust. whether this promise is kept and russian troops are withdrawn from those areas, only time will tell. the developments happening in turkey between negotiators from russia and ukraine that met for the first time in nearly three weeks. this all happening on the heels of these developments that have been going on throughout the region. really what is telling about these developments is just exactly what will happen next. it's really unclear. you talk to u.s. officials and they say they're not buying this. they don't believe this is in fact is a withdrawal. they think it's a redeployment. we've seen many areas that have been hard hit, places like mariupol and other spots that have been bombed out. look at buildings that have been almost cut in half where seven people died. it's the same story throughout the region. >> what have they done there? i don't know. they have damaged everything, i think. i don't know if i'll have anything to go back to. >> we'll see what happens next, martha. we'll follow this closely on the ground in ukraine. >> martha: your heart break for that woman and so many like her. thanks, jeff. with that, we bring in kurt volker, the former u.s. ambassador to nato. thanks for being here. what do you make of the latest developments in terms of the possible retrenchment in russian soldiers and russian military, maybe pulling back from kyiv. >> this is a cover story by russia. their military didn't go as planned. the ukrainians have wanted the russians to move forward. they're cutting off the supply lines and the russian forces that remain are being targeted and killed. so they're keen to get them out of there, redeploy them and consolidate forces in eastern ukrainian where they have more reliable supply lines. so the russians are trying to use this as a vehicle in negotiations. they have not committed to withdraw as a whole and regrouping in order to prepare for fresh attacks. >> martha: how much do you see of this as an acceptance of failure to take kyiv and how much of a game-changer is that potentially? >> that is significant. the russian military knows that they're not able to advance and take kyiv or kharkiv or odesa or these plays that they've been wanting to take. they know they won't make that now. that is significant. they're going to have to regroup in the east and decide what to do from there. this does not mean that they will stop shelling the cities and stop shelling civilians. they will probably continue to do that. in terms of the ground forces, they know they need to fall back around recover. i think the russian military is coming to the conclusion that they can't win. there's no where that they can take over ukraine there will be a successful independent ukraine at the end of this. whether putin will believe that or accept it or resort to brutal means of mass destruction, that is the dangerous face we're looking at. >> martha: that is a very dangerous face. you said early on in the end, we don't know when that end is, you believed that ukraine would remain a sovereign nation and putin would be done. do you still believe that? have these developments exacerbated that? >> yes. we're watching that happen. it's not happening one day to the next but ukrainian forces have beaten back the russians enough that we have no doubt and ukraine's survival. now the question is how do the russians deal with this. do the russian leaders other than vladimir putin see what is happening, they know that they're seeing their military destroyed in ukraine and the economy is being destroyed at home and when do they pull the plug on this. can they convince putin to do it or do they have to remove putin to do it. that is something that could play out over the next week or months. we don't know. we do see what is happening on the battlefield and we see what is happening in the economy. >> martha: we know from any history, vladimir putin talks about how much he hates embarrassment and humiliation. there will be some of that here for him, kurt. >> yes, indeed. it's dangerous because le has no way out. he has committed himself to a failing course of action. military is failing, the economy is failing. the only way forward is to succeed, which means to defeat ukraine militarily. which means his temptation is to keep doubling down and doubling down again. that's not going to work in the long run but could be devastating for the ukrainian public. >> martha: and these reports of leaving dead russian soldiers behind, not wanting to bring them home in body bags or coffins really speaks to that. ambassador volcker, thanks very much. we're almost out of time. i appreciate you being here and