at your local xfinity store today. ♪♪ let's get you to the white house where we're following breaking news. president biden in about 30 minutes from now expected to address the nation on the crisis between ukraine and russia. with the administration officials telling our team there's more urgency. new details coming in on what

the president is expected to say and not say, including on that so-called mother of all sanctions packaged aimed at the kremlin. speaking of sanctions, news breaking on that as we speak from capitol hill. we'll take you there live. with the president's speech coming even as russia tries to shift its tone, claiming to have pulled back some of its troops from the ukrainian border, a claim not verified by the u.s. or its allies. our team is standing by at the white house and around the world. and news on the pandemic to tell you about. the senate just this afternoon narrowly confirming an fda director as the agency looks at whether to give vaccines for the littlest kids? we're talking about all of this with the chief medical adviser to president biden, dr. anthony fauci joining us live in a couple of minutes. i'm hallie jackson in washington. we expect it to be a busy hour of news. peter alexander is at the white house. richard engel is live in ukraine. leann caldwell is on capitol

hill. we're joined by angela stent, senior adviser at georgetown. peter, let me start with you. we've known people in the president's orbit had beens tal when and how he should talk about these russia/ukrainian tensions. why now? why today? >> it's a good question. in our conversation with senior administration officials, it's clear this white house and this president believed it's the right moment for him to be speaking to the american people before there is action taken by the russians, if action is to take place in terms of an invasion in ukraine, to detail what the u.s. strategy is, the ways in which it's working closely with america's allies and partners and about the potential impact it could have on americans at home given gas prices and other prices already high right now. this could in some way affect americans in their wallet depending on how things play out

in the recent weeks. let's detail for you, if we can, some of what we do expect to hear from the president. we note that the president will say that the u.s. remains open to high-level diplomacy in coordination with the u.s. allies. that they believe that building on multiple diplomatic off-ramps remains a pospossibility. that the u.s. and allies have already provided some details as it relates to what those off-ramps could look like and ways for russia to deescalate the situation. the belief that diplomacy and deescalation remain the best path forward and that the u.s. remains prepared for every scenario as evidenced by the u.s. sending another 3,000 troops to that region in the last several days. we will hear from the president within the next 30 minutes or so. as it relates to that pulling back of troops that russia claims began within the last 24 hours or so, there's no verification from here at the white house. the u.s. ambassador to nato says

it could take a couple days before they know for sure. we hope to hear more details about all of it when the president speaks a short time from now. >> let me get the view from you, richard. the backdrop to the president's speech is word from the ukrainian government that their defense ministry, a couple banks have been hit by cyberattacks. what do we know? >> so, two banks were hit here including the most popular bank in ukraine. and the bank's app, a lot of people here use mobile phone apps to do banking, and people were locked out of their accounts. they couldn't transfer money. they couldn't check their balance. another bank which is popular with retired people, they couldn't do online banking, no internet banking. those services, according to the banks, have since been restored and no one's money was stolen but it was very disruptive when

you have two important banks shut down for most of the day. about six or seven hours. then two websites, the ministry of defense and the armed forces network, also shut down by denial of services attacks. no attributions so far has been given, but the authority that works closely with the ukrainian military that monitors and tries to resist against cyberattacks just last night said that there were cyberattacks launched from russian territory against ukraine. >> one of the things that we know that president biden may touch on to some degree is sanctions. i know there's news breaking in the last couple minutes here that republicans are putting forward their own sanctions push, which correct me if i'm wrong, seems to be undercutting the work we've been talking about for several weeks with this bipartisan effort to get sanctions done. what's going on? >> absolutely it does. republicans and democrats have been trying to come to an

agreement on a severe sanctions package for the past several weeks. they've been unable to do so. republicans think the reason that agreement has not been reached yet is because they think the administration does not want congress to move forward on these sanctions just yet so it's been pushing democrats to hold back. so what republicans decided to do, breaking just now, is introduce their own sanctions package. this likely isn't going to go anywhere. democrats control the senate, but this is a big signal to democrats, to the administration, that republicans are ready to move and they say that to send a strong message to vladimir putin that congress is going to be united and going to act on this. the reality is is that the administration doesn't really need congress in order to impose sanctions. what republicans are saying is that it would look much, much stronger if congress is behind the president and the

administration and the american government work in unison. >> peter, we think the president may touch on that, likely not a centerpiece of the remarks here in 25 minutes. is that fair? >> i think that's right. the white house to this point has repeatedly said if russia is to inside, if a single russian troop steps into ukrainian land, they will face swift and severe consequences. the potential fallout is what it does to americans at home. there's some expectation that the president may give americans a sense of what that could look like. there was a real concern among administration officials, this white house over the past several weeks where they had been discussing -- we first reported about this in the middle of january, a desire to speak in some form about this, that one of the concerns was if they were to speak, if president biden was to go before the country and the world community, that it would in some way allow for vladimir putin to undermine whatever it is he said with some actions he would take to follow. clearly the white house feels

strongly that there's good reason for them to deliver that message right now. >> angela, what is -- we heard from vladimir putin already today. again, this tone shift that may or may not be real. may or may not be a head fake. what will he be listening for when we hear from president biden coming up in a couple of minutes? >> well, i think he's going to listen to what the messages are. he has to -- he has to come out with the german chancellor saying the diplomatic off-ramp is there, we want to discuss this. i think they're listening to see how seriously the united states still takes the possibility of an invasion. we really don't know whether they will invade or if they're using this to get us to the negotiating table to get concessions from us. >> how seriously do you take it when you hear those comments we heard from vladimir putin today? >> i take it seriously if he can find a way of not having to invade ukraine, particularly a

massive invasion, which would be extremely costly for russia, but to force the nato countries, particularly the united states to sit down and negotiation create not just about ukraine but about the european security guarantees he wants, that's his longer-term gain. he will keep at this. it's not going to be over if he doesn't invade. this is going to be a long, grinding process. >> at what point do you believe that the u.s. should take in good faith some of these troop movements from russia? i say this because russia has said they're moving some of these troops back from the exercises they were doing. as richard well knows, these are troops that would be close to the ukrainian border any way, not the troops that came in from further distances to get up to where any near potential action would be. what is the pivot point you're looking for to take putin more seriously on that front? >> you have to see the troops really moving back. i think some troops will remain because of this new relationship. they have to be seen moving

back, far back. they brought all the troops over from the russian far east. let's see if some of those go back to near the chinese border. ronald reagan said trust but verify. you do have to verify they're moving back and this is not just all a cosmetic move. >> richard, our presence on the ground there in ukraine, some final thoughts on the minute and a half we have left? >> i think people here are trying to figure out what the next few days will be like. there is a bit of fatigue in ukraine. people are wondering if this is all real. i think there's a skepticism growing among ukrainians that the russians will invade. they think maybe this is just a great game between nato and russia and they are caught in the middle of it. i think if invasion were to happen tomorrow, many ukrainians would be surprised. they don't think russia has given up on them. they know vladimir putin wants to have control of this country.

they're just not totally convinced he wants to take on a full military battle with the 250,000 ukrainian troops. there was just a new poll that came out that i think is reflective. it said that about 70% of ukrainians in the west near kyiv would resist in some form. the number goes down to 30% in the east. on average, about 50% of ukrainians willing to resist against a russian invasion with a much higher percentage in the west, closer to kyiv and lviv. >> thank you all for your expertise on this. we'll have live coverage of president biden's remarks on msnbc when those begin. new reporting just in to us at nbc news from our team at nbc news on the january 6th committee's plans for upcoming public hearings. and the latest on the

dramatic changes in the pandemic landscape, a lot of mask mandates being lifted, maybe even where you live, dr. anthony fauci, you see him there, he's live with us after the break to talk about all of it. the break the break talk about all of it but not as much as you'd think. fortunately, my pharmacist told me about singlecare, a free service that gets you discounts at your local pharmacy. now i always check singlecare to see if it beats insur, and then i just choose the option that gives me the best price. the way i see it, when you're on a fixed income, there's no reason to spend any more than you have to! visit singlecare.com and start saving today. no one thinks about their hearing until you start losing it. and then you think about it a lot. this doesn't help and the whole process of getting them is a royal pain in the ..... ear. if only there was a better way. this is eargo, yes right here.

incredible right? what's more you get all the support you need all from here. sitting right here. fiddle fiddle fiddle, to loud, to soft, i'm not a professional sound mixer. now this is eargo. it's like magic. it adjusts to the environment where ever i go. perfect. can you believe someone thought this would help you hear better? genius. now this is eargo. made to be heard not seen. genius. my name is douglas. i'm a writer/director and i'm still working. in the kind of work that i do, you are surrounded by people who are all younger than you. i had to get help somewhere along the line to stay competitive.

i discovered prevagen. i started taking it and after a period of time, my memory improved. it was a game-changer for me. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

one of the federal agencies at the top of the spear for the pandemic response is about to have a new leader after the senate this afternoon just in the last hour or so has narrowly confirmed dr. robert califf for the food and drug agency. he will take over as pfizer and the fda plan to roll out vaccines for the youngest children. that plan pretty much at a standstill at least right now, until april until we look more at that data. pfizer and the fda saying that authorization won't come for a couple of months. i want to bring in now the director of thellergy and

infectious diseases dr. anthony fauci. thank you for being back on the show. >> good to be with you. >> let me start with what we've seen from states all around the country in the last week or so. it felt like an avalanche of more and more states loosening up and ditching mask mandates, including here in washington. in your view, is it happening too soon? >> well, if you look at the trajectory downward and the cases and of the hospitalization, it's clearly going in the right direction. i mean obviously the cdc still now recommends masking because of the degree of infection that we're seeing, but what i believe the states are doing is anticipating that we are going in the right direction and they feel they might as well just get back to -- trying to get back to some form of normality by pulling back on restrictions. we got to be careful about that.

you don't want to be declaring victory prematurely, that's why the cdc, who continues to monitor these things and will make modifications of recommendations as we see the trajectory continue to come downward, but it's entirely understandable why the states at the local level are looking at what their own local situation is and are making decisions. that's the way it works. the cdc makes recommendations and locally the decision is made on the basis of what's going on in your particular location. >> do you think the local politics are overriding the science or largely no? >> i -- i wouldn't say it's the politics. i think it's the different evaluation of what's right for a particular community. we use the word politics, i'm not sure it's that. i think at the local level there's a strong feeling of needing to get back to normality. if you look at the science of it, the direction is going in

the right direction. are we there yet in every single place throughout the country? i don't believe so. but some places are looking at what the trajectory is and are saying let's go with it. >> let me ask you about spaces under federal jurisdictions, i'm thinking of planes. that mask mandate is set to expire the middle of next month. what recommendation do you plan on making to president biden when it comes time to extend that mandate or close it out? where do you think we are? >> i don't want to get ahead of the decisionmaking process. a lot of it will depend on what i mentioned just a moment ago. namely the trajectory of that downward dynamic. if things start plateauing and going up, which i hope they won't, but we want to make sure when we make a decision it's based on the science as we see it at that time and it continues to change. fortunately for us it's going in the right direction right now.

i think when the time comes for any kind of a policy decision to be made, it will be based on the data. let's just hold off before we make any predictions about that. >> i hear you. it does sound like you're leaving the door open to maybe lifting that mask mandate on planes in a month or so. >> you know, whenever i say that, not by you, but by so many, it will get taken completely out of context. we'll go on what the data is at the time. >> let's talk about data as it relates to the vaccines. shots for kids under the age of five. for a lot of parents with kids in that age group, you know i'm one of them, there's disappointment and confusion when these changes happen with pfizer, you know, maybe going to the fda in february, now that looks to be april. help us make some sense of this. what does the data show, and what is the updated timeline on when shots in arms can start for that age group? >> it looks like the standard

vaccination regimen for children of that age group, namely six months to four years plus up to five will be a three-dose regimen. what had happened is that it was hopeful that a two-dose regimen would be able to do it. as the data began coming in, it became clear that they wanted to continue with the three-dose study before making any determination about the efficacy. there's no doubt about the safety. the one thing you don't want to confuse parents is they think there's something here that -- there's a concern about safety. it's not a safety concern. they're accumulating data rapidly on the three-dose regimen. that will be presented to the fda, the fda will do what they usually do, scrutinize it carefully and then make a determination as to what the recommendation is, what dose and what dose regimen.

of course parents, like yourself, who are wishing you would have an answer now. you want to make sure it's done correctly. when we give you -- namely the fda and the cdc with their recommendation, when we give you as a mom a recommendation, you can feel comfortable that it's based on the solid science and not on an anticipation of what you would like it to be. >> you and i talked a lot about vaccines needing to be safe and effective. you make an important point. the safety piece of it is not in question. it's how effective is it and at what level -- how many doses do these kids need? do you anticipate then, what, perhaps at best-case scenario a month from the introduction of the pfizer data to the fda to potential approval? could it take longer? >> again, i don't want to predict. it's not going to be six months from now, that's for sure. but the fda and others have said they're making a projection that it would be a matter of a month or so. that's not a definitive

prediction. we don't want to get ahead of the fda. >> as we talk about the shots that kids need, what about the shots adults need. some are recommending fourth shots for the immunocompromised. do you anticipate a fourth shot becoming the norm for all of us, for the general population? >> that is possible. but the data, as they show right now indicate that about four or five months out when you look at the parameter that we're focusing on more now, that's prevention and efficacy against hospitalization, it seems to be holding quite strong at around 78. the cdc and all of us follow this literally in realtime. if there's going to be any indication to think that that degree of efficacy against hospitalization begins to wane to a certain level that we

become alarmed, there will be recommendations. at least for the important parameter of hospitalization, at that timeframe that we're looking at now, the four or so, four to five-month timeframe, it looks pretty good. about a 78% protection against hospitalization. >> i have two more quick questions for you. i know you have other things on your schedule. what is the next phase of this pandemic look like? we are going to see other variants. how do you describe it? i know you said we're getting close to the end of the full-blown phase of this pandemic. what can we anticipate? >> what i hope we can get to, and i believe it's entirely possible if not likely, we can get to the point of control of the dynamics of the outbreak, where there are many fewer hospitalizations. where you have in place vaccination, boosting, testing, and antivirals so that you get that level. right now, even though the level is going down, it's not at a comfortable level where we can

say we're satisfied with where it is at this moment. it needs to get better. i believe when it does, we can get it as we say integrated into the general approach towards infections usually by the respiratory route we're concerned about. that will be hastened and made even more likely if we get more people vaccinated and boosted. >> before i let you go, i have to ask you about sort of the political piece of this. an analysis at nbc news found, as we head into this midterm year, you are among the top targets for republicans in these ads up there with president biden and speaker pelosi, even the chinese president, xi. why do you think republicans in particular see you -- in theory, somebody removed from politics, is such a target? >> it's very difficult to explain. i think it's just the divisiveness that we see in this country. if you look back at everything that i have said over two years. it's been based on trying to preserve the health and the

safety of the american public. whether that's talking about vaccines, whether that's talking about masks. there's nothing political at all in what i do. it's really unfortunate that i have become a target of political messages because i never have, do not now, nor ever will have anything to do with politics as you know politics. my job and my mission for the 40 years that i've been -- almost 40 years that i've been director has always been health and science and facts. so, you know, i think it's unfortunate having gotten caught up in what is the political divisiveness in this country. >> dr. anthony fauci, so grateful for your time and perspective this afternoon. thank you for being with us. appreciate your time. we have news breaking, just coming in to us right now. a jury in manhattan ruling against sarah palin in her defamation suit against the "new york times." palin, who was the 2012 vice

presidential candidate, had claimed her reputation was damaged by the times' coverage. i want to bring in danny. explain this. the jury has ruled against her, but the judge has already said the case was expected to be dismissed regardless of how the jury came down, right? >> the judge granted the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law. so no matter what the jury did, sarah palin lost. all that really happened today was that sarah palin lost for a second time with the jury. but it didn't matter what the jury said. sarah palin was going to lose this trial. this is really about a feel -- that's what the judge's decision is about. the reason people are wondering why he did this during deliberations, the reason he did is so that the record could be more complete on appeal. possibly if the second circuit got this and say they got it wrong, they could reinstate the jury's verdict instead of sending it back towards trial.

the judge wanted a complete record. >> danny, thank you for that breakdown. appreciate you joining us. more breaking news. right now at the white house, we expect the president to be within the next couple of minutes of delivering that speech. we're technically close, we belive. you can see the microphones there. we expect him to be walking up. it depends on how hard or soft that two-minute warning is. i believe we have mike memoli with us. courtney is posted up at the pentagon. andrea mitchell is our chief foreign affairs correspondent and host of "andrea mitchell reports." matt bradley is in ukraine and we're joined by ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser in the obama administration. ben, let me start with you as you are the newest addition here to this group. apologies if i have to interrupt you if the president begins to speak. what is the number one most important point that you believe president biden needs to make in

the next minute or two here? >> you know, i was also a speechwriter. i think one of the things about ukraine and president biden has spoken about it a lot, he has not been able to lay out the four corners of his policy. what's important for him is to give the american people an update, having seen these scary headlines about what is the status of diplomacy with russia? vladimir putin indicated he's open to continued discussions. that's the state of those discussions? and president biden talked about significant consequences in terms of sanctions on russia if there's an invasion of ukraine. he may have to prepare the american people that that may come with difficulty for the american people. this is an opportunity for him to lay out the full scope of what we're doing what he's seeing what are the consequences he's prepared to put in place if russia acts and how will we deal with the effects of those consequences. >> andrea, we expected, bases on

the reporting from mike memoli and peter and the white house, the president will point out that diplomacy is the best path forward and de-escalation is the best path forward. andrea, we'll listen here to president biden. >> today i would like to provide an update on the crisis involving russia and ukraine. from the beginning of this crisis i've been clear and consistent -- the united states is prepared, no matter what happens. we are ready with diplomacy, to be engaged in diplomacy with russia and our allies and partners, to improve security in europe as a whole and we're ready to respond decisively if russia attacks ukraine. over all the events of the last few weeks and months, this has been our approach and it remains our approach now. today i want to speak to the american people about the situation on the ground, the

steps we've taken, the actions we're prepared to take and what's at stake for us and the world. and how this may impact on us here at home. for weeks now, together with our allies and partners, my administration has engaged in nonstop diplomacy. this weekend i spoke again with president putin to make clear that we are ready to keep pursuing high-level diplomacy, to reach written understandings among rush sharks the united states and the nations of europe to address legitimate security concerns, if that's the wish. their security concerns and ours. president putin and i agreed that our team should continue to engage towards this end along with our european allies and partners. yesterday the russian government publicly proposed to continue the diplomacy. i agreed. we should give the diplomacy every chance to succeed. i believe there are real ways to

address our respective security concerns. the united states has put on the table concrete ideas to establish a security environment in europe. we're proposing new arms control measures, new transparency measures, new strategic stability measures. these measures will apply to all parties, nato and russia alike. we're willing to make practical result-oriented steps that can advance our common security. we will not sacrifice basic principles, though. nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. they have the freedom to set their own course and choose with whom they will associate. that still leaves plenty of room for diplomacy and for de-escalation. that's the best way forward for all parties in our view. we'll continue our diplomatic efforts in close consultation with our allies and our

partners. as long as there's hope of diplomatic resolution that prevents the use of force and avoids incredible human suffering that would follow, we will pursue it. the russian defense ministry reported today that some military units are leaving their positions near ukraine. that would be good, but we have not yet verified that. we have not verified the russian military units are returning to their home bases. indeed our analysts indicate they remain very much in a threatening position. and the fact remains right now russia has more than 150,000 troops encircling ukraine and belarus and along ukraine's border. an invasion remains distinctly possible. that's why i've asked several times that all americans in ukraine leave now before it's too late to leave safely.

it is why we have temporarily located our embassy from kyiv to lviv in western ukraine approaching the polish border. we've been transparent with the american people and with the world about russia's plans and the seriousness about the situation so that everyone can see for themselves what is happening. we've shared what we know and what we're doing about it. let me be equally clear about what we're not doing. the united states and nato are not a threat to russia. ukraine is not a threat to russia. neither the u.s. nor nato have missiles in ukraine. we do not -- do not have plans to put them there as well. we're not targeting the people of russia. we do not seek to destabilize russia. so the citizens of russia, you are not our enemy. i do not believe you want a bloody destructive war against ukraine, a country and a people

with whom you share such deep ties of family, history and culture. 77 years ago our people fought and sacrificed side by side to end the worst war in history, world war ii was the war of necessity. if russia attacks ukraine, it would be a war of choice or a war without cause or reason. i say these things not to provoke, but to speak the truth, the truth matters. accountability matters. if russia does invade in the days and weeks ahead, the human cost for ukraine will be immense. the strategic costs for russia will also be immense. if russia attacks ukraine, it will be met with overwhelming international condemnation. the world will not forget that russia chose needless death and destruction, invading ukraine will prove to be a self-inflicted wound.

the united states and our allies and partners will respond decisively. the west is united and galvanized. today our nato allies and the alliance is as unified and determined as it has ever been. the source of our unbreakable strength continues to be the power, resilience and universal appeal of our shared democratic values. this is about more than russia and ukraine. it's about standing for what we believe in. with a future we want for our world. for liberty, the right of countless countries to choose their own destiny and the right of people to determine their own futures. the principle that a country can't change its neighbor's borders by force. that's our vision. to that end i'm confident that vision, that freedom will prevail.

if russia proceeds, we will rally the world to oppose its aggression. the united states and our allies and partners around the world are ready to impose powerful sanctions on export controls including actions that did not -- we did not pursue when russia invaded crimea in eastern ukraine in 2014. we will put intense pressure on their largest and most significant financial institutions and key industries. these measures are ready to go as soon and if russia moves. we'll impose long-term consequences to undermine russia's ability to compete economically and strategically. wen it comes to nord stream 2, the pipeline that would bring natural gas from russia to germany, if russia further invades ukraine, it will not happen. i will not send american servicemen to fight in ukraine, we have supplied the ukrainian military to help them defend

themselves. we provided training and advice and intelligence for the same purpose. make no mistake, the united states will defend every inch of nato territory with a full force of american power. an attack against one nato country is an attack against all of us. the united states commitment to article 5 is sacrosant. several allies announced they will enable capabilities along nato's eastern flank. we will conduct military exercises with our allies and partners to enhance readiness. if russia invades, we will take further steps to reinforce our presence in nato and deter

further aggression. to be clear, if russia decides to invade that would also have consequences here at home. the american people understand defending democracy and liberty is never without cost. this is a cause that yaw nights unites democrats and republicans. members of both parties have forcibly spoken out in our most basic, bipartisan and american principles. i will not pretend this will be painless. there could be impact on our energy prices. so we're taking active steps to alleviate the pressure on our own energy markets and offset raising prices. we're coordinating with major energy consumers and producers. we're prepared to deploy all the tools and authority at our disposal to provide relief at the gas pump. i'll work with congress on additional measures to protect consumers and address the impact of prices at the pump. we're not seeking direct

confrontation with russia. i've been clear that if russia targets americans in ukraine, we will respond forcefully. if russia attacks the united states or allies through asymmetric means, like disruptive cyberattacks against our companies or critical infrastructure, we're prepared to respond. we're moving in lockstep with our nato allies and partners to deposition deepen our collective threats in cyberspace. two paths are still open. for the sake of historic responsibility russia and the united states share for global stability, for the sake of our common future to choose diplomacy. but let there be no doubt, if russia commits this breach by invading ukraine, responsible nations around the world will not hesitate to respond. we do not stand for freedom where it is at risk today, we'll

surely pay a steeper price tomorrow. thank you. i'll keep you informed. >> president biden speaking for about ten minutes in the east room of the white house. you just heard it, warning americans that a russian invasion remains distinctly possible, but that he agrees with vladimir putin, give diplomacy, the president said, every possible chance to succeed. you heard the president talking about the reports from russia that their troops have been pulled back from some of their positions along the ukrainian border. the president indicated that would be good, but the u.s. has not verified that, at least not to this point. you also heard the president acknowledging the potential consequences for americans if, in fact, russia does invade as it relates to energy prices, mitigating, for example, higher prices at the gas pump. i want to bring back mike

memoli, matt bradley in ukraine, leigh ann caldwell on capitol hill and ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser in the obama administration. so, that's the speech, right, as you have reported. those close to president biden have been discussing when and whether and how he should deliver it for weeks now. this afternoon was the time. you heard those words. he was clear to russia about the potential consequences but he kept the door open to those off-ramps for vladimir putin. >> while it was so interesting listening to that speech because the president did check just about every box laid out as we've been reporting about the deliberations happening behind the scenes of what the goals and purpose of the speech would be, but also the reasons politically and for the american peoples understanding needed to be done. he laid out the exhaustive diplomacy, nonstop diplomacy as he put it, that the u.s. continues to engage in. there was an indication there

that was interesting about russia's public comments and his willingness to move forward at this point, even as u.s. officials have been warning for days that we appear to be at the imminent point of invasion. he also talked about the sanctions that were at the ready on a moment's notice to be deployed if russia were to invade. then it was important, so many people had been saying that the president really didn't need to speak directly to the american people about the fact that this could lead to higher gas prices. as the president put it, americans understand defending democracy and liberty is not without cost and his administration is doing everything it can to mitigate whatever increases we see. i also thought what was striking about this speech was the president not just speaking directly to the american people but speaking directly to the russian people about the consequences of this invasion, about this being a potentially self-inflicted wound if russia were to go ahead with an invasion. an important historical illusion here that russian people are prideful of the role they played during world war ii, the

president saying this would be a war of choice, very different from that moment. so, it was very clear as the u.s. is very much hoping to avoid an invasion at this point, they're leaning on the russian president on doing so. i thought that was striking. >> matt, president biden, of course, having the ear not just of the american people, not just the russian people, but of the ukrainian people as well. >> yeah. the ukrainian people, i've got to tell you, i've been talking to them here in this city, it's -- they're not exactly worried about this invasion. this is something that has been so hard to explain considering the number of troops and the hardware mustering all around this country. this really wasn't a message to the ukrainian people. we actually saw the president bringing up and invoking some of the language that barack obama has invoked and mike memoli mentioned this, that dialogue

about war of necessity and war of choice. barack obama called the war in afghanistan a war of necessity and the war in iraq a war of choice. here we see president biden talking about a war of necessity and a war of choice comparing russia's war and world war ii to a war of necessity and this war in ukraine that seems to so far have been averted as a war of choice. it seems like he's sort of comparing those two, making this a folly of the kind that the iraq war was for his predecessor. that's a poignant message, not to the ukrainian people but to the american public. that's something i think is not going to resonate here. here we're not necessarily seeing that same level of tension as i've been saying over and over again. the ukrainian people, they feel like they've been at war with russia for the past eight years.

we heard from the foreign minister here in ukraine saying that we don't believe in words, we believe in actions. they're waiting to actuallyforc their border. we heard from jan stoltenberg saying they have no real impression that there's been a real withdrawal from the border. here in eastern europe, i think a lot of people, ukrainians and european leaders, they're waiting to actually see real tangible results on the ground and only then will they congratulate russia for not capitulation but something like actual cooperation with the rest of the global institutions that the world is waiting for them to cooperate with. >> ben, do you think president biden did what he needed to do here? how did you see that war of

choice language that all of us picked up on that the president talked about? >> i think he did. there was a feeling, as mike mentioned, you know, that, look, if there's going to be either a major diplomatic break through of sorts, hopefully, or more tragically if there's going to be war, it was important for him to get out ahead of that and lay out essentially here's the policy, here's what i've been doing, here's why this matters to you. here's some of the impacts you might deal with if we do impose sanctions that have a negative effect on energy prices and the economy. i was struck that it was a forceful tone. he took the olive branch from putin in terms of saying he would continue to have discussions and he put on the table some things we heard before about transparency, military exercises, but two things that got to me. on russia's core demand, that ukraine not become a member of

center of this crisis, he drew a line and said nations should get a chance to choose what organizations they belong to, what their foreign policies are. he did not give an inch on that foreign question. that was a message for him to deliver. and the messaging to the russian people directly, he's playing into, i think a widespread belief in russia that this war could be potentially disastrous for them. when they annexed crimea, they did not face much in the way of resistance. there wasn't a lot of fighting. the kind of invasion they're envisioning now would lead to huge and tragic loss of life for ukrainians and russians. it would add on top of the economic hit they've already taken. and putin would be doing it through a war he didn't need to fight. a lot of what the administration has been doing is framing this as vladimir putin choosing to do something that is going to have

terrible consequences, not just for ukraine but for russia as well. putin, if he got his way, he would want to frame any military action as something he was forced to do by a ukrainian pretext he cooks up. once again, they're trying to deny putin and making it clear to the russian people and the world that, look, this is the choice that vladimir putin is going to make. if he makes it, he could be committing a tragic mistake to not just the ukrainian people but the russian people as well. >> over and over ben, to your point, we heard the president warn of the costs of what could happen if putin does invade ukraine. to that, leigh ann, you have some agreement on capitol hill as to what sanctions should look like, how significant they should be. the devil is in the details and that's where we're seeing some of these sticking points as to what congress could do. >> there's been disagreement among republicans and democrats about some specifics about the

sanctions. generally speaking, congress is united that after a potential invasion by russia, that there should be tough sanctions against them. now, senate republicans introduced their own sanctions legislation today. while it's likely to not go not because it doesn't, it was done unilaterally, what it does tell us though is what the realm of sanctions that congress is discussing and that pipeline that the president mentioned, saying it would not go forward, well, that is definitely a big part of the sanctions. in addition to these sanctions, there's also sanctions on major russian banks. also secondary sanctions on banks that work with sanctioned russian banks and of course, sanctions against putin's what they call cronies before russia further invades ukraine so ensure putin pays a price now for hybrid attacks.

that's what republicans want. they want some sanctions immediately. now, it doesn't look like that's going to happen at this point, but what biden was clear, which is kind of the same page as where democrats have been, is that post invasion sanctions are going to be swift. they're going to be tough. and they're going to be comprehensive. and so this is something that while is still being debated and discussed on congress an there's not a lot of time, there is u themty for the most part that something needs to be done. that the u.s. has to respond should russia move forward. >> part of the response that the president hinted out had to do with the potential for cyber attacks from russia, too. against the backdrop of something where he talked about earlier, some of these banking websites, other sites going down today according to the ukrainian government. what options do you believe the president would have on that front? >> well, i think he was pointing to the fact this could be met if

russia invades ukraine. in the united states imposes the more severe sanctions that have been discussed, it's quite likely that putin will reciprocate. he will try to drive up prices and feed the inflation crisis in this country and around the world by potentially denying natural resources that come from russia. he may engage in cyber attacks against american business or service attacks in the united states. they could be ramping up disinformation campaigns and we could find ourselves not in a direct military conflict with russia, but in some kind of asymmetric conflict. i took away from president biden's language, not only was he going to be considering increased defenses to thwart cyber attacks, but that the united states would respond and send cyber attacks into russia or against key russia infrastructure if we feel like that's what the russians are doing to us. it could indicate the scale of what we could be looking at

here. the kind of conflict that doesn't just play out on the battlefield. and really preparing the american people for the idea if putin goes in with the full scale invasion, that this is going to be a big part of not just our foreign policy, but our national policy as well for the foreseeable future. >> and correct me if i'm wrong here, but the president also i think gave us new insight into just how many troops russia has amaszed on the border with ukraine. i think it would be up to 130,000. that was what our reporting. the president said the fact remains now that russia has more than 150,000 troops encircling ukraine. >> i think one of the takeaways from this few months now has been the real quality of u.s. intelligence in the situation. and while there's glimmers of hope we woke up to this morning

with the spoken commitments to withdraw some of the numbers we've been seeing, you heard the president say we have not yet verify. whenever you hear an american president talk about trust but verify, it's poignant. i remember very clearly president obama, might have been in one of his final news conferences, talking about the prospects of the cyber warfare space becoming the wild west. so that's why it's so important to hear from the president because he was speaking directly to the russian people at points during this speech, but also clearly, we know he's spoken privately with the russian president three times since early december, but this was an opportunity to make some of the commitments he's made privately publicly, but also make it clear he's willing to state the

threats publicly because that certainly requires him to follow through on them if need be and the president understands that. >> andrea mitchell is back with us. andrea, let me start with you and your takeaways here. >> this was a very tough speech. a speech indicating what our intelligence is telling the white house and what richard engel is reporting from the front lines is that russia has not pulled back. there are now according to the president, some 150,000 troops. contrary to pulling them back, he is moving them back and moving closer to ukraine, so this is a speech saying don't you dare. if you step 1 foot over, we will have a unified response. it will be tough economically. nato the ewan this new chancells

stood up. not merkel. has stood up. they are together and there's no question in anyone's mind now that this administration has done a heck of a job to pull this together. this is one of the things they have practiced. "the washington post" first reported there have been doing table top exercises, not a war game. this speech indicated the tough side of joe biden and his team in terms of what they are seeing and it may not be immediate. putin has lost the element of surprise because the biden administration has declassified intelligence and telegraphed his rules before he can make them. the false flag and other moves. so we see what he's doing in eastern ukraine. he can do a whole lot more. what the president is saying is we are watching you and telling the american people what to

expect and we are saying we are not going to sepd u.s. troops in to rescue americans so get out while the getting is good. we've moved the embassy. it is shut down in kyiv. it is on the western border with poland. this could happen days, weeks or perhaps even some we talked to months from now if he does not draw down not just the troops back to their garrisens, but the equipment. the heavy equipment takes a lot longer to move. until he moves what is there, we are not going to relax and believe that diplomacy has worked and one quick other thing. there's a munich conference starting in two days. secretary blinken is going. the vice president will be there. it would be difficult for putin in an extreme to launch some sort of military action while european leaders are all

gathered in one place in germany. so you would expect especially because blinken and lavrov have spoken, there will be more conversations at that level and this will be prolonged. but until he moves his equipment, this crisis is not over and it could be a prolonged crisis to everyone's detriment, but it's to his advantage to keep everybody off base. >> what about where you are in moscow? >> it's going to be a very interesting press briefing. we heard biden say that they want to get, he wants to give diplomacy a chance. he thinks it's possible. he spoke positively about the overtures, some of the signals from the kremlin today and yesterday, but i have to point out when he was talking about laying out the path if r

diplomacy, arms control drills, all of that, we've heard this before. there hasn't been a fundamental change in the u.s. position. we know about this. they will call this issues of secondary concern and they will constantly repeat they're glad to hear it, but, and there's a big but here, they will not budge off of their demands on what they are calling their primary concerns. demands of nato, the rollback of infrastructure to 1997 borders. we saw putin reiterate that today amidst this talk of potential diplomatic overtures from the russians if you look at the core, he's still saying the same thing. we are very happy to hear these things, but there will be a package not done in isolation. >> thank you. ben rhodes thank you for being with us as well. we said it was going to be a

busy hour. it sure was. we have a lot more coverage coming up. deadline white house picks up right now. it's 4:00 in the east at such a crucial moment along the russia ukraine border. president biden just a few moments ago from the east room of the white house sharing with the american people and the world his hopes for a diplomatic solution. as well as his warning to the kremlin should that solution not come to pass. the reality right now is this. there is still a significant gap between putin's words and his actions. he met with germany's new chancellor in moscow today and suggested the kremlin had decided to partially withdraw some of its troops. of course that would be a welcome development for peace and diplomacy. as of yet, there is zero satellit