WATCH: Psaki Repeatedly Stops Short of Completely Ruling Out Military Response if Russia Uses Chemical Weapons

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki seemed to rule out a military response to a hypothetical Russian chemical attack in Ukraine, but a closer reading of her comments shows she only mostly ruled it out.

In a lengthy Twitter thread Wednesday, Psaki raised concern over the prospect of a Russian chemical or biological attack on Ukraine, in response to things like Russia’s attempts to project such intentions on Ukraine.

“We took note of Russia’s false claims about alleged U.S. biological weapons labs and chemical weapons development in Ukraine,” Psaki wrote, and after noting Russia’s pattern of behavior on chemical weapons, concluded “Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It’s a clear pattern.”

During Thursday’s press briefing, Ms. Psaki fielded a slew of questions about that issue, unified in theme by a desire to know whether the consequences of a Russian chemical or biological attack would be a military response by the U.S., or some other unspecified escalation.

At every turn, Ms. Psaki made an effort to dispel the notion that the U.S. military would engage Russians in Ukraine — but a close read of her comments shows a significant sliver of wiggle room.

Associated Press White House correspondent Darlene Superville was first to ask, and after taking a shot at sidestepping, Psaki carefully answered Superville’s follow-up (emphasis mine):

MS. SUPERVILLE: Would use of chemical or biological weapons be a red line for the President in terms of direct U.S. involvement in the war over there?

MS. PSAKI: We are directly involved. We are providing a billion dollars in security assistance. We are the largest provider of that. We are providing humanita- —

MS. SUPERVILLE: With the military troops.

MS. PSAKI: With the U.S. military going and engaging in Ukraine and fighting a war against Russia? We don’t have any intention to do that.

That response, “We don’t have any intention to do that,” carries with it the present-tense wiggle room that characterizes many of the administration’s similar responses. It sounds pretty definite, but it provides a loophole to later say “That was true at the time. Things changed.”

CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins noticed that wiggle room and drilled down on it. Psaki pried that wiggle room open a bit wider, at least in terms of her most important audience member (emphasis mine):

MS. COLLINS: I just want to be totally clear: Are you saying if Russia does conduct a chemical weapons attack in Ukraine, there will not be a military response from the United States?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. What we’re saying right now is they have the capacity and the capabilities. I’m also not going to get into intelligence. But the President’s intention of sending U.S military to fight in Ukraine against Russia has not changed.

MS. COLLINS: But that sounds like even if there is a chemical weapons attack, that calculus will not change. So I just want to be clear on what the U.S. response would be if this happens.

MS. PSAKI: Again, there has not been a chemical weapons attack. We are conveying to all of you what the capacity and the capabilities of Russia are, what steps they have taken in the past.

Let’s hope we are not having a discussion about that. But the President and our NATO partners have not changed their assessment about their plans to send U.S. troops in.

MS. COLLINS: Would President Biden let a chemical weapons attack in Ukraine go unanswered by the United States?

MS. PSAKI: We have not let anything go on answered that President Putin has done to date.

MS. COLLINS: (Inaudible) chemical weapons attack, would he let it go answered?

MS. PSAKI: We have not let anything go unanswered to date — any steps that President Putin has taken to date. What that would look like, I can’t give you an assessment of that from here at this point.

Psaki reiterated her present-tense reassurances under questioning from NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander:

MR. ALEXANDER: I’m saying, given the potential that you’ve indicated that Russia could use a bio or chemical weapons strike there, why wouldn’t the U.S. communicate to them something that is not an answer, but instead preemptive, to communicate the consequence if they are to take what would be a horrific — this war to a horrific new level?

MS. PSAKI: The President’s first and most important objective is the national security and interest of the United States and being clear and direct with the American people. He has been clear and direct with the American people. He is not intending to send U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine against Russia to start another war. That that would be an escalatory step; that would not be in our national security interests and not in the interests of NATO.

What we have conveyed is Russia’s capabilities, their capacities, and their pattern of using chemical and biological weapons.

MR. ALEXANDER: And so, what does he say then — that’s the message to the American people: his responsibility to them, of course, is before any other. What does he say to Vladimir Putin? If those at the head of the Russian government are considering that, what do you say to them watching right now?

MS. PSAKI: We have been very clear, and our actions have been the evidence of this, that there will be significant consequences for every escalatory step that is taken by President Putin and the Russian government.

Psaki — representing the Biden administration — has several audiences to consider when discussing this matter. She must reassure the American people that we’re trying to stay out of a world war. She must assuage reporters desperately thirsty for tough talk that will make news, many of whom appear to believe this could have an effect on Vladimir Putin’s behavior. And she must attenuate her responses to critics who will pounce on any seeming contradiction, both now and at some future date.

Psaki is also speaking to Putin, for whom the drawing of an explicit “red line” could be seen as an invitation to bait the U.S. into backing down. President Joe Biden has learned well the lesson of former President Barack Obama’s red line in Syria.

Putin is the audience for Psaki’s careful present-tense language, as well as her conspicuous halts when pressed by Collins about a hypothetical Russian chemical attack.

• “I’m not going to get into hypotheticals…”
• “There has not been a chemical weapons attack…”
• “Let’s hope we are not having a discussion about that.”

Combined with the present-tense language about “intentions,” these are not very subtle hints that an actual chemical attack could change the calculation. It’s not the tough talk that the media or critics are looking for, but Putin is meant to hear it loud and clear.

At his State of the Union address last week, President Biden used careful but strong language when he spoke more generally about using military force in Ukraine, saying “Our forces are not engaged and will not engage in the conflict with Russian forces in Ukraine. Our forces are not going to Europe to fight [in] Ukraine but to defend our NATO Allies in the event that Putin decides to keep moving west.”

But that statement, like most of what the administration has been saying on this subject, leaves room for the calculus to change — Biden and his officials haven’t said they will never respond with direct military action under any circumstances. That would be foolish, just as needlessly setting a “red line” trap for yourself would be.

Psaki’s responses leave just enough room to make Putin wonder, but not enough for him, or anyone else, to seize on as a threat.

Watch above via The White House.