0 ukraine. at least 130,000 troops and that number has gone up and they continue to conduct live fire exercises. according to the white house, president biden reaffirmed his support. zelensky said there's no need to panic and he knows the situation better than president biden. according to the kremlin, putin told his french counterpart that the u.s. and nato had not addressed his fundamental concerns about security in the region. joining me from kyiv is my partner matt bradley, courtney kube is in the briefing room and will ask questions on our behalf. matt, let me start with you on what we're hearing from president zelensky. how much of this is about not a message to his own domestic audience, don't panic and attention elites, don't flee the country. >> yeah, chuck. it was interesting because he had the foreign press assembled there. i was one of them. all of the foreign press seemed to be asking variations on kind of the same question, how are you so relaxed and not reacting to this massive troop buildup, 130,000 troops and not just the huge numbers. they're surrounding the country in a crescent shape going from north to east to south. he essentially said exactly what you just said, he knows the situation better than anyone. he also came back to this repeatedly, this is about the economy. he doesn't want to sort of psych out his -- the public here in ukraine because he's more worried that this is going to cost people. you know, they always say that capital is cowardly and you can tell that that was something that the president of ukraine was really keeping in mind and he went back to this repeatedly and he complained about how a lot of money has already been pulled out of the economy. you know, ukraine in his estimation has really made leaps and bounds towards an improved economic situation and he's not going to let the threat of war, when there's no war yet, actually cause problems or actually reverse the progress that he feels he has made in enriching ukrainians, which only a little while ago was a very, very poor country. so for him, panic just won't get him anywhere and it won't get the country anywhere. also a lot of troop movements, moving a lot of troops around, trying to bring troops up to the front, that would be feeding right into russia's hands. it would provide them with a castless belly. >> the question, though, is are they looking for some other response from biden or does he want -- or is this a case where he wants to be able to publicly say i'm not as concerned as he is but he does want president biden doing what he's doing? is this a good cop-bad cop situation? >> it's unclear. the fact of the matter is a lot of his answers kind of amount to the same thing. first of all, it was going back to the economy, but then when you actually think about it, what else is he going to do? he mentioned over and over and over again and i've heard this from other officials in government, other analysts here, we have to remember as far as ukrainians are concerned, they see it as they've been at war already for the past eight years. they see us as disaster tourists who are only suddenly realizing there's a threat from russia. for them they've been living with this for eight years and two of their major provinces have been occupied for that time and been a sustained war for nearly a decade in which 15,000 ukrainians have been killed and sees the west as raising alarm bells that for here have been sounding for a very long, long time. for him, why panic? this has always been the case. while that seem incredible to us given the sheer number of cruise missiles marshaling all around ukraine at the moment, to a lot of ukrainians, it's just another day. >> matt, the decision by putin today to use conversation with the french president to officially essentially reject the u.s. response here and never mind the a second and general milley are now coming to the podiums. i'll talk to you on the other side. >> obviously we're all socially distanced so we've got the majority of the press covering this press conference are on zoom and the secretary and the chairman will be taking from those in the room and on zoom. given the unique circumstances and of course their pressing schedules today, i'd ask you to limit your follow-up questions so we can get a chance to get through everybody, and i'm be i'll be coming back to call it at the end as we get ready to close. both the secretary and chairman have opening statements. >> thanks, john and thanks to everybody. i'm really glad to be with you. i know you're covering the situation in europe closely. i want to update you on what the department's doing to support ukraine and to uphold our ironclad commitment to our nato allies. as you know, for months now russia has been deploying forces to crimea and along ukraine's border, including in belarus. it has progressed at a consistent and steady pace involving tens of thousands of russian troops, and it is being supported by increased russian naval activity in the northern atlantic and the mediterranean sea. we don't believe that president putin has made a final decision to use these forces against ukraine. he clearly now has that capability. there are multiple options available to him, including the seizure of cities and significant territories but also coercive acts or provocative political acts like the recognition of breakaway territories. indeed we're seeing russian state media spouting off now about alleged activities in eastern ukraine. now, this is straight out of the russian play book and they're not fooling us. we remain focused on russian disinformation, including the potential creation of pretext for further invasion or strikes on donbos and any further incursion into ukraine would violate the bedrock principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination. so this is something that we're taking very seriously both as a strong partner of ukraine and as one of 30 members of nato, who are unified in opposition to russia's attempts to undermine those core values and threaten peace and security in europe. so let me be clear on where things stand today. first, conflict is not inevitable. there is still time and space for diplomacy. the united states in lock step with our allies and partners has offered russia a path away from crisis and toward greater security. the department of defense will continue to support those diplomatic efforts. second, the united states remains committed to helping ukraine defend itself through security assistance material. since 2014 we've committed more than $2.7 billion in security assistance to ukraine. that includes more security assistance to ukraine in the past year, $650 million, than at any previous time. and so in december president biden authorized $200 million in assistance, which included additional javelins and other anti-armor weapons, grenade launcher, large quantitiys of artillery and small arms ammunition and other equipment. those deliveries are ongoing. indeed another shipment just arrived today. and, third, the united states will stand shoulder to shoulder with our nato allies. that includes reinforcing security on nato's eastern flank and, as you know, we placed thousands of u.s. troops on prepare to deploy orders earlier this week. if nato activates its response forces, these troops will be ready to go. now, the situation on ukraine's borders is changing rapidly, but as we look ahead, there are a couple of things that we can count on. one, this department will continue to provide president biden with national security responses. and, two, we will stay united with our nato allies. earlier this week i spoke with my polish counterpart. yesterday i spoke with my romanian counterpart and this morning i had two very good conversations with my counterparts in france and germany. as we've made clear, in addition to the significant economic and diplomatic costs that russia will incur, a move on ukraine will accomplish the very thing russia says it does not want, a nato alliance strengthened and resolved on its western flank. the united states will contribute to nato's response forces and we will coordinate with our nato allies and we will make sure that they have the capabilities that they need to defend themselves. article 5 is clear on this point. an attack against one nato member is an attack against us all. and as president biden has said, the united states holds this as a sacred obligation, and we will do right by that commitment. and mr. putin can do the right thing as well. there's no reason that this situation has to devolve into conflict. he can choose to de-escalate. he can order his troops away. he can choose dialogue and diplomacy. whatever he decides, the united states will stand with our allies and partners. i want to briefly address two other items before we open it up for questions. first, on wednesday i was honored to join the president to help deliver on the promise that all men and women should be able to serve their country free from fear of violence or harassment. this executive order will improve the military justice system's response to sexual assault, harassment and related crimes. and i welcome it. and finally, as you know, yesterday i directed changes to the department's civilian harm, mitigation and response policy oversight and processes. within 90 days we will unveil a plan to specify the range of actions that we'll take on civilian harm mitigation and response, including important steps building on knowledge and best practices and tools for preventing and mitigating and responding to civilian harm. but i also ordered some immediate steps, including the establishment of a civilian harm center of excellence reporting to me that will compel us to learn from our mistakes and to make changes in stride. i know personally how hard we work to avoid civilian harm and to abide but the law of armed conflict, but i've also said that we need to do better and we will. this is a priority for me, and we will ensure that we are transparent as we continue this important work. and so now i'll turn it over to the chairman for his thoughts. >> thanks, secretary. and good afternoon to everyone and appreciate having an opportunity to address all of you. ukraine has the right to be independent, and they have been an independent country since 1991. russia signed the budapest memorandum in 1994 with the united states and great britain that guaranteed the territorial integrity and sovereignty of ukraine. it's the policy of the united states government to continue to support an independent ukraine and their goals and we are continuing our effort to enhance their ability to protect themselves. we strongly encourage russia to stand down and to pursue a resolution through diplomacy. armed force should always be the last resort. success here is through dialogue. the russian federation has amassed upwards at this time of over 100,000 ground forces, air forces, naval forces, special forces, cyber, commander control, logistics, engineers and other capabilities along the ukraine border. ukraine is the second largest country in europe with a population of 44 million. it's divided in the middle by the river. prominent terrain includes flat, open plains and there are an abundance of rivers and lakes and there's a high water table. when that high water table freezes, it makes it for optimal conditions for cross country, tracked and wheel vehicle maneuver. the city of kyiv has a population of nearly 3 million people. other major populations exist. there are many people in highly dense population centers throughout ukraine and if war were to break out on the scale and scope that is possible, the civilian population will suffer immensely. the ukraine military has about 150,000 active duty service members with many more in the reserves. they consist of multiple units, sea, air, land, and they are currently disposed and arrayed throughout ukraine with a high density on the eastern section and line of contact in the dombas region. ukraine maintains air defense, tanks, and a highly regarded people's militia. their combat capabilities have improved since 2014 when russia annexed illegally crimea but they need additional help to defend themselves, particularly from a force the size it amassing. there is a small contingent of u.s. and nato advisers and trainers currently in ukraine. the united states has zero offensive combat weapon systems nor any permanent forces nor bases in ukraine. our role is limited in that we help train, advise and assist with tactics, techniques and procedures. we participate in institutional development with the ukrainian ministry of defense. as the secretary of defense noted, we continue to provide military support to ukraine along with other countries from nato. we are ready, capable and prepared to uphold our obligation under treaty to nato, as mentioned by the secretary, an attack against one nato ally is an attack against all. nato has significant military capability. nato has approximately 130-plus brigades of maneuver forces not including u.s. forces. 93 squadrons of high-end fighters, four carriers, many more surface combatants. the military capable of nato is very, very significant. in addition to bordering russia and belarus and moldova, they border hungary and romania. the a second has authorized the united states military to increase our readiness in the event we have to reinforce or assist our nato allies. war is not inevitable, as the secretary said. the right answer here is a diplomatic solution. i look forward to your questions. >> thanks, general. we'll turn to questions now. we'll start with leta. >> reporter: thank you both for doing this. mr. secretary, first, can you say whether any u.s. troops have begun moving either into or in and around europe and, if not, can you give us an idea when that might happen? and then second i recall, how much risk is it to send additional u.s. troops to the eastern flank? russia even today has said they see little room for compromise right now. does sending additional u.s. forces to that region hand putin an excuse to make an incursion into ukraine? >> well, thanks, leta. i think can you assume that any time that we think about troop movements, we always consider the impact that that's going to happen on leaders' minds and their decision making. i'd just make two points. you raised this earlier. we haven't actually moved any troops. we put troops on higher alert. and the second point that i would make, is that even if and when we do move troops, the purpose of those troops deploying would be to reassure allies or directly in support of nato or both. so i think that, again, before we make any decisions on readiness or movement of troops, we always take those things into mind, what other leaders -- the impact on other leaders. >> i echo what the chairman shade. i think in terms of your question about provocation, with respect to russia that would depend on the size, scale, scope and type of forces deployed as to whether that was provocative to russia. we have no intend that i'm aware of of putting offensive forces to attack russia. i don't think that's nato's intend at all. this is entirely engineered by russia. >> we'll go to the phone. i think helene cooper is up next. >> reporter: thank you for doing this. i have questions for both of you. for secretary austin, you said in your opening statement that vladimir putin clearly now has the capability to enter ukraine. has he put in place the military hardware and troops that he would need to launch a full-scale invasion of all of ukraine, the whole country? and for both you and general milley, both of you have been military officers for four decades, you served in the gulf war and iraq and you've seen north korea and iran pursue their own nuclear ambitions. i'm wondering does this feel different to you? how would you characterize this crisis with ukraine and russia in terms of its potential to spark a great power conflict? >> well, in terms of whether or not he has enough forces to conduct a full-scale invasion, helene, you heard the chairman say earlier he's got north of 100,000 troops in the border region. that gives him a number of options. what he's done is he's continued to move troops and resources into the region is increase his options. and so we won't predict where his decisions will take him, but we remain concerned about the range of options that he could pursue and will stay focused on his problem set. and i'll turn to the chairman for his thoughts. >> in terms of the size of the forces that are amassed right now, they could -- it's potential we don't think there's been a decision as the secretary already made that point, but sure with 100,000 troops and you've got combined arms formations, ground maneuver, artillery, rockets and all of owes parts that go with it, there's a potential they could launch very, very little warning. that's possible. and there's a wide scale of options that are available to russian leadership, and the best option they should pick, in my view, is a diplomatic solution to resolve whatever differences they have. >> in terms of how this fields, helene, as we look at that number of troops and that amount of hardware that's in the border region. it far and away exceeds what we typically see them do for exercises. and so it's very concerning. where this could lead us in terms of a type of conflict or could put the region in terms of future being tifts. i won't bother to speculate on that. i would just say that we're focused on making sure that we do our part to provide the president options, to support and reinforce nato if, in fact, he does make a decision to invade ukraine. >> and does it feel different? sure, it does feel different. in terms watch we've seen in the past of russian exercises, et cetera, this is larger in scale and scope of amassing forces. i think you'd have to go back to the cold war to see forces of this magnitude. we'll continue to monitor very, very closely but, yes, it does feel different. >> we'll come back to the room and go out to david. >> reporter: since the president has ruled out sending u.s. troops into ukraine, does that mean that the u.s. military would not be used if an evacuation of kyiv became necessary? >> as you've indicated, david, the president's been real clear that he does not intend to put combat troops into ukraine for the purpose of conducting combat operations. any troops that we deploy, if we deploy troops to the region are troops already in the region, have multiple capabilities. we always look at a range of options that we may have to pursue, but, again, to the point that you made earlier, david, the president has been clear about not employing troops and ukraine for combat purposes. >> reporter: does that rule out using u.s. troops for evacuation purposes? >> i won't speculate, david, but i would say that we prepare for a range of activities and options. that's what we've always done and that's what you can expect to us do going forward. >> and, david, the state department has issued travel advisories. those are in effect right now and those advisories say words to the effect of doesn't travel to ukraine, if you're an american citizen, and if you're in ukraine, you should consider leaving ukraine. you can go to our web site and see what they put up. >> there were similar advisories before afghanistan, too. and it didn't forestall an evacuation crisis. >> that's also correct. >> rest assured, david, that whatever task the united states military is called upon to accomplish, we'll be prepared to do it. let's go back to the phone and reach out to phil stewart. >> reporter: yes, i have a question for both of you. secretary austin, president biden's decision to rule out u.s. forces to combat russia early in the crisis must have impacted putin's calculus in some way. how do you says it's