ms. psaki: good to see you. i have nothing at the top for you. what is on your mind josh? >> to questions. first, after the meeting. since the war began, has china provided a military or economic aid to russia or stressed any specific intention to do so? ms. psaki: i am not the position to detail any intelligence at this time. >> moving on the russia and ukraine talk. what does the u.s. see at this time for optimism for a cease-fire litigation in which caret and stick do you think both respond? ms. psaki: sure. as has been set in the past, long as they choose to put dissipate in them, of course. we tried to boost them by providing not just economic and humanitarian assistance, but military assistance. we believe it strengthens their position in these talks. our view continues to be that despite words that are 70 stocks coming out of the stocks, diplomacy requires engaging in good faith to de-escalate, and what we are really looking for is evidence of that. we are not seeing any evidence at this

ms. psaki: hi, everyone. i don't want to disappoint you, but i have no toppers today. darlene would you like to kick , us off? reporter: i want to follow up about being on the lookout for biological weapons and ukraine and possibly creating false flag operations. what is the evidence beyond what you said? is there more to this? ms. psaki: they have a large biological and chemical weapons program, so it's a pattern. but they also have the capacity. i am not going to get into specific intelligence. we look at all of those factors and we also know, the main issue that prompted my twitter thread yesterday was that russia has a of inventing outright lies like history also of inventing outright lies like this which is the suggestion that the united states has a chemical and biological weapons program or ukraine does that they are operating. russia is the one that has a chemical and biological weapons program. so the objective was to make , clear the inaccuracy of the information, the misinformation t

ms. psaki: i'm not going to get into hypotheticals but what i am saying is they have the capabilities. the president's intentions towards sending troops to fight in ukraine has not changed. >> it sounds like if there is any attack that calculus will not change. ms. psaki: there has not been a chemical weapons attack. we are committed getting with the capabilities of russia are, what steps they have taken in the past. let's hope we are not having a discussion about that. our president and nato partners have not changed their assessment about plan to send u.s. troops in. >> would he let a chemical attack in ukraine go unanswered by the u.s.? ms. psaki: we have not let anything go unanswered president putin has done. we have not let anything go unanswered to date, and he steps president putin has taken to date. what that site, i cannot give you any assessment of that. >> u.s. says their assessment is that ukraine has claimed they don't think it would be effective to send more ukraine -- more aircr

ms. psaki: the most important objective is the national security of the united states and being clear and direct with the american people. the president has been clear and direct to the american people. he is not intending to send u.s. troops to fight in russia to start another war, that would be an escalatory step, not in the interest of nato. we have conveyed russia's capabilities and capacities and their patterns of using chemical and biological weapons. >> what would you say is the message to the american people, and what would you say to vladimir putin if those in the head of the russian government are considering that? ms. psaki: we have been clear that there will be significant consequences for every escalatory step taken by putin and the russian government. >> you have said you have close the door for flying aircraft to ukraine, the transfer of migs. mitt romney today said there is a sentiment that we are fearful about what putin might do and what he might consider escalation, it is tim

ms. psaki: best -- pres. levits: yes.ur opinion is that we should give to ukraine all what ukraine needs in order to defend for their selfdefense against russian aggression. but we don't have plans. it is up to the nations which could make the planes. there are different opinions. but we're considering each day how it is possible to help ukraine. we discussed at the moment the most effective military help to ukraine is to give antitank missiles and antiaircraft missiles. and ukraine is getting this and we will increase our military help and i think this would considerably strengthen the ukrainian side in this war. missy: well, unfortunately, we are going to have to leave it there. president levits, thank you so much for joining us for "washington post live." and thank you for joining us here today. remember, you can go to washingtonpostlive.com for information about our future programming, and i hope you can tune in again soon. thanks, again, and have a great day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [

ms. psakithe most important objective is the national security of the united states and being clear and direct with the american people. the president has been clear and direct to the american people. he is not intending to send u.s. troops to fight in russia to start another war, that would be an escalatory step, not in the interest of nato. we have conveyed russia's capabilities and capacities and their patterns of using chemical and biological weapons. >> what would you say is the message to the american people, and what would you say to vladimir putin if those in the head of the russian government are considering that? ms. psaki: we have been clear that there will be significant consequences for every escalatory step taken by putin and the russian government. >> you have said you have close the door for flying aircraft to ukraine, the transfer of migs. mitt romney today said there is a sentiment that we are fearful about what putin might do and what he might consider escalation, it is time

ms. sherman: you heard jen psaki say this morning -- everything is on the table. mrs. wagner: with all due respect, madam secretary, we are importing the -- mr. meeks: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. waler in: $ -- mrs. wagner: six million barrels a day. mr. meeks: i represent dina titus for five minutes. ms. titus: i want to get back to this topic at hand, the 2001 aumf. throughout the course of the war, both democrats and the republicans and the administration have used pretty creative interpretations of the aumf to justify the use of force to eliminate terrorists and their associates. in many of these instances, areas that are densely populated and often are on occasions people gathered for weddings or funerals or meals, you have had civilians who have been the result of an attack and there have been casualties. you saw that in syria. you saw it just recently when the kabul strike last year. i wonder what we are doing to try to protect against the civilian casualties when we go after people using this authority in the aumf? and i could ask ms. krass or whoever

. >> i'm aware of what jen psaki said that my question to ms.-- [inaudible] >> i think we need to consider all of the options here given the aggression of vladimir putin. >> i agree with you that a follow-up do you think we should not importing russian oil to finance their war machine? >> i think congressman and considering this we need to thinkhr through what this will mean for the american consumer as well. the president said last night he wants to understand the americans are facing high gas prices at the pump when they go to fill their cars as some of your colleagues have said this morning as well so as we make our choices here about the sanctions against russia and the consequences that could and has to pay the president said last night he wanted to make sure that we mitigate as much as possible the cost to the american public into and to american citizens in their day delay -- day-to-day lives. they are decisions that we are making carefully on behalf of american consumers and american citizens. >> what is more important cost of gas at the