we thank each of you for your testimony, and admiral pandolfe for being here to answer questions. and i'll begin with you, secretary nuland. i know in the past you have characterized what russia has done and ukraine as an invasion. does that description -- does that still stand with you? >> we have used that term in the past. >> and are you using that again today? >> i'm comfortable with that word. >> just for the record, since russia does not acknowledge the deaths of their soldiers, if you will, publicly, how many russian soldiers do you think have been killed in ukraine as part of this conflict? >> well, mr. chairman, as you can imagine, it's pretty difficult to have an accurate assessment given russia's efforts to mask its dead. >> what is our -- >> hundreds and hundreds. >> hundreds and hundreds? the numbers, i thought, were substantially higher than that. so under a thousand? >> chairman, i can't speak to more than 400, 500 at the moment, but if we have a better number for you in the future, we'll come back to you. >> okay, good. i know that you have been a strong advocate p

>> i certainly agree with the way admiral pandolfe described his motives earlier in this hearing. he's looking to keep countries in the former soviet space under his political and economic control. he's looking to roll back the gains of a europe whole free and at peace. which is why all of the things that we're talking about here, whether it is allied reassurance and making sure that where we do have treaty commitments, which is to the nato allies, that every millimeter of space is defended, but also to help strengthen and provide more resilience, political security and economic to all of the countries in the periphery. >> earlier in vladimir putin's aggression against ukraine i heard a number of administration officials saying we were trying to offer an off-ramp to vladimir putin. does anybody on the panel here believe that vladimir putin is looking for an off-ramp? he's simply looking for on ramps strategically pausing and looking for the next on ramp. anybody want to dispute that? i didn't think -- >> i don't know they would call it an off-ramp. i think there was a point early