Senior Defense and Senior Military Official Hold a DOD Background Briefing on UkraineContracts for Dec. 17, 2024Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder Holds a[...]

MAJOR GENERAL PAT RYDER: All right. Well, good afternoon, everyone. Thanks so much for joining us for today's background briefing and update on the situation in Ukraine. As a reminder, today's call is on background attributable to a senior defense official and a senior military official.

Please note, I will call on reporters. We'll try to get to as many of your questions as possible in the time we have available. And before we begin, I would ask that you please keep your phones on mute unless you're asking a question. And with that, I'll turn it over to our senior defense official, followed by our senior military official, for any opening comments.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'd like to give you an update on international and US security assistance for Ukraine. I'll start by highlighting some of the important work that our allies and partners are doing as we work together to support Ukraine. Secretary Austin and Minister Umarov will convene the 25th Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting or the UDCG in the new year.

Since February of 2022, allies and partners have committed more than $59 billion in security assistance to Ukraine. As a percentage of GDP, 16 of our allies and partners contribute more than the United States. Our allies and partners have stepped up in a big way to first help Ukraine defend itself against Russian airstrikes with everything from air defense systems to equipment to protect Ukraine's critical national infrastructure.

In that vein, allies and partners have committed dozens of systems including high end Patriots and SAMP/Ts and Germany continues to lead through its Immediate Action on Air Defense Initiative, which is raising hundreds of millions to invest in Ukrainian air defense. Allies and partners have also established and bolstered Ukraine's F-16 capability with Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway, committing to provide 79 jets and with Canada, Denmark, France, Romania and the UK training Ukrainian pilots.

Allies and partners have also surged critical munitions like through the Czech Initiative, which will have coordinated the delivery of hundreds of thousands of rounds of 155 millimeter ammunition by the end of the year from a dozen countries and allies and partners have donated hundreds of main battle Tanks and thousands of armored vehicles including leopard tanks which form the core of Ukraine's future armored fleet.

13 of our allies and partners have also stepped up over the past year to co-lead the UDCG's eight Capability coalitions which are designed to build Ukraine's near and long-term capabilities. At the upcoming UDCG meeting, coalitions will present the capability roadmaps they have developed which will help shape efficient, sustainable support for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the US Department of Defense remains committed to putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position on the battlefield, including through significant security assistance. On December 12th, DOD announced a $500 million PDA package, Presidential Drawdown Authority package, which will provide Ukraine additional capabilities to meet its most urgent needs, including air defense, munitions for rocket systems and artillery and anti-tank weapons.

We will continue to provide presidential drawdown packages through the end of the administration. On December 7th, Secretary Austin announced the 22nd Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or USAI package valued at nearly $1 billion. This package includes munitions for rocket systems and unmanned aerial systems, as well as support for maintenance and repair programs to help Ukraine reconstitute its forces and build and sustain combat power.

We are on track to notify all remaining USAI funding from the April supplemental in the coming weeks. Our support to Ukraine via USAI has enabled significant investments in Ukraine's, air defense, fires, unmanned aerial systems and other critical capabilities. This includes providing NASAMS and Hawk air defense systems and helping to develop the Frank and Sam system, which pairs western munitions with Ukraine's legacy air defense systems like Buk, resequencing hundreds of Patriot and AMRAAM air defense interceptors to move Ukraine ahead of other foreign military sales customers to ensure Ukraine has the missiles it needs to protect its cities and critical infrastructure from Russia's brutal missile barrages. Ensuring a steady flow of critical munitions, including artillery, ammunition and air to ground munitions, and again, supporting maintenance and sustainment efforts to ensure that the equipment that we've provided does not break down in the field.

The United States and our allies and partners remain committed to supporting Ukraine to prevail against Russian aggression. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Good afternoon, everyone. From me, on my side here, I'll just give you a brief battlefield update as the latest things that we've been seeing and a couple of other quick updates. First, I'll start in the Donetsk region. This this appears to remain Russia's main effort and they continue to make incremental progress toward Pokrovsk.

In general, most of their maneuver has been to the south of the city on some fairly open terrain and the Ukrainians have been ceding some of that terrain and falling back to more defensible positions. And so while the Russian soldiers have made significant progress, when looked at over a long time day to day, it's very short amounts of progress.

And as the Ukrainians get to more defensible positions, we think they'll be able to shore up the defenses and last for some amount of time defending Pokrovsk, depending on how events on the battlefield play out. So continued difficult fighting in that region. Up in the Kursk Oblast, the Russian counteroffensive has caused the Ukrainians to cede some of the territory that they had back in Kursk back to the Russian forces.

And as all of you are likely tracking, the North Korean forces that were sent into the region have been now seen up on the front lines and we have seen them taking casualties as well. We're ready to comment a little bit more on that if there's questions regarding what we're seeing specifically, but the Ukrainian defenses do appear to be holding at this time. It will be some time before the forces that the Russians have brought to bear there would be able to reduce that salient in any meaningful way.

Part of the effort to prevent them from making gains in both of those areas, the Ukrainians have been adjusting their long range strikes and changes to US policy now allow the Ukrainians to use US provided munitions and western provided munitions into Russia. So Ukraine has conducted a number of ATACMS and other strikes with long range munitions into Russia.

Those have been successful at the tactical level. We're evaluating their operational effects, but we've certainly seen some benefits from those up front. The last thing that I'll mention just briefly here in the opening is, of course, looking a little bit more broadly with the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, a significant Russian failure to prop up that murderous regime that they were supporting for so many years. That certainly could change the dynamic of Russia's power position in the Middle East and we're watching that closely.

And with that, I look forward to your questions.

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: Thank you both. Our first question will go to AP, Lita Baldor.

Q: Hi. Thanks so much for doing this. A question for the Senior Defense Official. I think you said that the US will be on track to provide the $1.2 billion in USAI. What about the remaining $5.6 billion in PDA? Do you think that it will not be possible for the US and DOD to provide that within the next month or so? And then I have a question for the Senior Military Official.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Sure, Lita. So just to make sure, it was a little bit hard to hear, so I just want to clarify the dollar amounts that we're talking about. So for USAI, we do have $1.22 billion remaining and we do anticipate notifying that entire amount, likely before the end of this calendar year, but I don't have specific timing of when we will make the next announcement.

And then for presidential drawdown authority, we have $5.6 billion in remaining authority. And we will continue to do drawdown packages for the remainder of this administration, but $5.6 billion is a substantial amount of authority. So I would certainly anticipate that there could be remaining authority that would transition and be available for the next administration to use.

Q: And then for the defense official - thank you for that. On the North Korean troops, can you update us on the numbers that you all have seen in the Kursk region? And what are the casualties looking like? And what do you see them actually doing there? Thank you.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah, Lita. We've seen some independent maneuver from the DPRK forces, a lot of integration with Russian maneuver units up there as well. A fair amount of usage is small light infantry, if you will, and a little bit of indirect fire usage with, say, mortar, platoons and things of that nature that they've been employing.

So that's kind of what we've seen in terms of how they've been used. And as I mentioned, they're definitely up on the front line. They are taking casualties. We think now based on the latest understanding that we have as of this afternoon that we're looking at several hundred casualties. And just a reminder, that would include everything from light wounds up to being KIA. So several hundred casualties is our latest estimate that the DPRK has suffered up there.

The overall numbers remain consistent with what we've previously, somewhere around 12,000 DPRK troops. We've not seen any others flow into the region.

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: Thank you. We'll go to CNN, Haley Britzki.

Q: Hey. This is Oren asking for Haley. I was just wondering, do you have a sense of, has Putin requested more North Korean troops? I know the number is 12,000, but is there an ongoing dynamic there? Is there a standing request that Kim is considering or has rejected? And on the same question of sort of the number of troops there, is Russia still able to regenerate as many troops or as many casualties as they're suffering?

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah, difficult to know what exactly has been agreed between Putin and DPRK. I don't think we have any particularly good insights on if he's asked for additional DPRK troops from Kim or if Kim has agreed or rejected. We're obviously watching it closely and looking for indicators of that such as troops getting prepared to move out of North Korea, etc., things that we can pick up from a variety of intelligence sources, but we don't have any real good indication one way or the other on that. And then can you repeat the second part of your question, Oren?

Q: The numbers we were looking at were about a thousand casualties, 1,200, 1,500 a day that Russia was suffering, but they were still able to regenerate that at least as of several weeks ago. I was wondering, is that still the case? Are they still able to plug those holes and get the number of troops they're losing in casualties?

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah. The latest estimates that I've seen are that those figures are still accurate, roughly 1,200 casualties per day. Sometimes it's a little bit more, sometimes a little bit less. And I've seen no indications that they're unable to regenerate. So they do continue to regenerate. I don't think that can last forever, though, is what I would say.

So while they may be able to do that now, we certainly know that that's one of the concerns that they would have on their side, is how long could they sustain that regeneration over time. And it's inevitable, quite frankly, that if they continue to sustain that level of casualty, that eventually they'd have to look at another mobilization, which obviously would be a large political decision for them within their system.

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: Thank you. We'll go to Washington Post, Dan Lamothe.

Q: Hey. Thanks for your time and thanks for doing this today. A quick one for our senior defense official. We're starting to see at least some discussions of kind of a what's next, European peacekeepers in Ukraine being one possibility. I wonder if you have any insight into that and any discussion of that, any thought of us providing transportation support of any kind?

And then for our senior military official, could you walk us through what the North Koreans seem to have for capabilities in Kursk so far? There's been some reporting so far that they've been relatively easy for the Ukrainians to combat. Didn't know if DOD has a view of whether that's accurate? Thank you.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Hi, Dan. So on your question I would say that certainly, there's lots of discussions of how the US and our allies can continue to support Ukraine. I don't have any speculation on how precisely that might unfold and certainly, this is something that is going to extend, the conversation is going to extend into the coming weeks and months into a new US administration. And I'm certainly not going to speculate on future administration decisions.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: And then, Dan, on the capabilities that the North Koreans have, these are primarily special operations forces being employed for light infantry type tasks. I think as far as the capabilities, they're consistent with what you would think they would have there, lower caliber, indirect fire capability and then direct fire capability.

And obviously the kind of communications equipment that you would expect. I think if I was going to describe their capability more broadly and not think about the kit that they had, I would tell you that these are not battle hardened troops. They haven't been in combat before. And I think some of that is showing, and that is probably contributing to why they're relatively - I don't want to say easy targets, but why they have been suffering the casualties that they have at the hands of the Ukrainians in this early weeks of contact.

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: Thank you. Let's go to Tom Bowman, NPR. Tom, are you there?

Q: Yeah, can you hear me?

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: Yep. Gotcha.

Q: OK. Yeah, I want to go back to what the senior defense official said to help Ukraine, quote, prevail against Russian aggression. How do you define that? I mean, you don't believe that they can push all the Russians out of Ukraine, do you? And this, as we've often been told, this is to give them a better hand at the negotiating table; is that what you're saying?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Tom, yes, we have always said that we would expect this war to end in a negotiation, but it's really important that Ukraine be in the strongest possible position going into that negotiation and that the outcome of that negotiation preserve Ukraine's sovereignty as an economically viable state. So that is what I'm talking about.

Q: And of course, the incoming administration is going to be talking, it has been talking about a negotiated settlement. And since we're on background, if you stayed in your job, do you think that would have been likely, if you remain in your job, that next year you'd see some type of negotiation or is that uncertain?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: So again, I don't want to speculate on decisions by a future administration. I think we have to wait to give the next president a chance to assess the situation.

Q: But again, they've already said that.

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: Hey, Tom. I'm sorry. We got to move on. Let's go to Elle Watson CBS.

Q: Hi. Thanks. On the North Korean troops, the casualties suffered, is there a range? Is it all the way up to general level in terms of who has suffered casualties? And then since the senior military official mentioned Syria, what are you seeing Russia do in Syria and how might that affect what's going on in Ukraine?

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah. For the right range of folks that we think have been injured among the DPRK forces, it does cover a wide range of ranks. I don't want to get too specific, but it would be all the way from the very bottom to very near to the top based on some of the targets that the Ukrainians have hit, which have been command and control nodes, etc.

You can understand what types of leaders might be in those locations. So it is all ranks, if you will. And then in Syria, primarily what we're seeing is a consolidation of Russian capabilities. They have ceased flight operations over the country. It appears to us that they're taking the steps that would be necessary if they were planning to retrograde their forces from there.

We don't know if they've reached a decision to do that or if they are in discussions on whether they need to do that or not, but that force consolidation that would enable them to depart has certainly happened. And then from a naval perspective, they have sent their fleet that was in Tartus out into the eastern Mediterranean.

It's not in port in Tartus or wasn't as the last time I looked. And so again, it looks like they're setting conditions to depart Syria. And as I mentioned, they have ceased military operations there as best we can tell.

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: Thank you and just a reminder, please mute your mics if you're not talking. We've got time for just a couple more. We'll go to Helene Cooper, New York Times.

Q: Hi. Pat, thanks, and thanks to both of you guys for doing this. Two quick questions. One, is it your belief that Ukraine can hold on to the territory it has left in Kursk? And two, are you anticipating that Putin will fire another RCBM?

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Helene, thanks for the question. It's always difficult to predict based on the various factors and combat as to whether the Ukrainians would be able to hold on to a particular piece of territory or not. The Russians have made significant ground in Kursk. It will be a hard fight for the Ukrainians to hold what they have.

I have no doubt that they can hold it for a period of time that extends at least a few months into the future. Whether they take some losses or gain some territory during those couple of months is difficult to say. Over the long-term, the challenge will be sustaining that position over time, just as the battlefield continues to evolve.

So it will depend on a number of factors. It will depend on the effectiveness of the long range strikes that the Ukrainians are conducting, how effective are those, do they pick the right targets, etc. And it will depend on the performance really of the individual soldiers on each side on the battlefield, who will be Learning every single day and getting better as they work to survive and fight there.

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: Thank you. And our final question-

Q: And my second question, about Russia IRBM - yeah.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: On Oreshnik?

Q: Yeah.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah. So I don't have much to offer on that except to say that we do know that the Russians have a few of these missiles and that they are in the test phase of the program. And so it is certainly possible that they would launch another one and what modality would they use it in combat?

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Would they do an actual test launch instead of what they did last time? Very difficult to say, but we're watching that closely. And it's not necessarily a game changing capability, particularly given the limited numbers that they have, but it is something that was used with fairly significant effect from a strategic messaging perspective. And so we're watching it closely to see what happens.

Q: OK.

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: Final question will go to Howard Altman, The War Zone.

Q: Thank you so much. This is a great brief. I really appreciate it. A couple of questions about the status in the battlefield. If Pokrovsk falls, how much will that affect that part of the battlefield? And do you see the Russians pushing through towards Dnipro or somewhere else if that falls?

Do you see any signs of a new Russian offensive perhaps in Zaporizhzhia or some other area? And then, there was recently reporting that Ukraine had lost 40 percent of the territory gained in Kursk. Is that accurate or what's your assessment? Thank you.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Sure. I'll go in reverse order. I think the number you have for Kursk is broadly correct. I don't have an exact percentage I can give you, but it has been a significant loss and that is not an unreasonable estimate that you provided. In Zaporizhzhia, we do not see any indications of a pending offensive operation in Zaporizhzhia, at least not right now.

And then on your question on Donetsk and Pokrovsk, which I think is probably the most important one of the three, just from my perspective. Pokrovsk is a key hub. In the area, there's a fair amount of, from an industrial based perspective, a fair amount of precious metals and minerals and things that are important to the Ukrainian economy over the long-term. In the short term, it's also key lines of communication that the Ukrainians are able to use emanating from Pokrovsk to move their troops up and down the forward line of troops, the flot [ph] there.

So there would be a logistical impact and a potential longer term impact. I don't know what the Russian plans would be if they were able to take Donetsk and where they would move on. I would say that from my perspective, back to the senior defense official's point that you want Ukraine to be a viable economic entity, that the Dnipro is another major industrialized area in Ukraine.

It would be very important for the Ukrainians to hold that, and I think that would be a big part of their focus.

Q: Do you see Dnipro falling or do you see the Russians pushing into Dnipro if Pokrovsk falls?

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah, impossible to tell. I don't have any insights into their longer term plans. I'm not sure they do either, quite frankly. I think they certainly are focused on the tactical situation at hand there in Pokrovsk and it would be, just because they take Pokrovsk, doesn't mean Donetsk falls. There's a number of defensive lines after that.

It would take well, even if they sustain their current rate of advance, it would take a couple of years for them to take Donetsk completely. That rate of advance could change one way or another, but just doing the math, that's about what it would take right now.

Q: Thank you.

MAJOR GENERAL RYDER: All right. Thank you very much. That's all the time we have for today. As a reminder, today's discussion was on background attributable to a senior defense official and a senior military official. Thanks very much.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.