Hegseth press conference: spot-on questions, inadequate answers

The quotes below are from journalists at the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Press Conference Following NATO Ministers of Defense Meeting in Brussels on Feb. 13. They are journalists' questions which are adequate. Hegseth's answers are long and meaningless, therefore I am not including them; you can find them in the source by following the above link, if you wish.

"Liz Frieden:  Thank you, Secretary Hegseth. You have focused on what Ukraine is giving up. What concessions will Putin be asked to make?... Why not invoke article five then for the NATO peacekeeping forces that could potentially be deployed? Like, how does that deter President Putin?

Zach Basu:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Given the position you've now staked out, what leverage exactly is Ukraine being left with, especially if the US also plans to wind down its military aid? And then quickly, if a NATO ally is attacked by Russia or any country, will the US unequivocally uphold its obligations under article five regardless of that country's —

Max Delaney:  Thank you very much, Secretary of Defense. Can you — you've spoken about trying to force both Putin and Zelenskyy to the table. Can you give a guarantee that no deal will be forced on Ukraine that they do not want to accept? And also, that you will include Europe in the negotiations about their own — about an issue that concerns European security? And can you tell us whether the US will continue to supply arms to Ukraine during any negotiations?

Thomas Gutschker: Good afternoon. Mr. Secretary, two questions, please. The first one regarding the new Defense Investment Pledge. When you and President Trump speak about raising it to 5 percent, do you mean European allies only, or do you mean the US as well, which is currently at 3.4 percent according to NATO statistics? And if the latter is true, when do you think the US could possibly reach the goal of spending 5 percent on defense? That's number one. Number two, you said yesterday that Europeans need to take ownership of their own conventional security. So, should Europeans expect that ultimately the US would withdraw the bulk of their forces from Europe and just leave in place what is necessary for nuclear deterrence?"

***

Other people have remained with the same grim impression from the press conference - that Hegseth just crumbled when asked whether Russia would have to make any concessions, or just Ukraine. 

Below, I am translating from the Ukrainian site Dialog:

"...Washington already demanded from Kyiv to give up much of its territory, and the door of NATO is closed for Ukraine. However, somehow nobody has yet heard what concessions Kremlin will have to make.

Hegseth could not find an answer to this question, except repeat that all said above is no concession to Putin.

However, who will sent troops to Ukraine, who will pay reparations, who will stand trial for war crimes? Or for Washington, the great compromise is that Putin will take less of Ukraine than he initially planned?

The Secretary of Defense has one answer to all these questions: that each side of the conflict will have to make sacrifices in the negotiations.

However, it was just one country that invaded. If a criminal takes your home, and then offers to return only half of it, this is not a compromise but a hostage deal. When one of the sides is a victim, the peace agreement becomes capitulation."

Однако пресса напомнила главе Пентагона, что Вашингтон уже потребовал от Киева отказаться от ряда своих территорий и для Украины закрыты двери в НАТО. Однако почему-то никто не слышал, на какие уступки должен пойти сам Кремль. Даже на этот вопрос Хегсет не нашел ответа. Он только приводил свое мнение, которое заключается в том, что все выше сказанное - это не уступки Путину. Однако репортеры не унимались. Они задались вопросом, а кто отправляет войска в Украину, кто будет платить репарацию, кто предстанет перед судом за военные преступления? Или для Вашингтона большой компромисс заключается в том, что Путин возьмет меньше Украины, чем планировал изначально? На все эти вопросы глава Минобороны дал один ответ, что каждая сторона конфликта в переговорном процессе станет жертвой. Однако ответ прессы не заставил себя ждать. Полномасштабное вторжение начала только одна страна. Если преступник отбирает ваш дом, а затем предлагает вернуть только половину, то это не компромисс, а сделка заложника. Хегсет на все это ответил, что пришло время дипломатии. Но и здесь СМИ ему ответили, что дипломатия - это когда обе стороны хотят мира. "Но когда одна сторона просто хочет "паузы" для перезарядки, это не дипломатия, а подготовка к следующему вторжению", - заявила пресса. А на слова Хегсета о том, что, как говорит пресса, лучше и дальше вести войну, ему снова был дан достойный ответ. Мирное соглашение, когда одна из сторон конфликта является жертвой, - это капитуляция.

читайте подробнее на сайте "Диалог.UA": https://www.dialog.ua/world/309446_1739501481