Skip to content

ADVOCATETANMOY LAW LIBRARY

Research & Library Database

Primary Menu
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Countries198
    • National Constitutions: History, Purpose, and Key Aspects
  • Judgment
  • Book
  • Legal Brief
    • Legal Eagal
  • LearnToday
  • HLJ
    • Supreme Court Case Notes
    • Daily Digest
  • Sarvarthapedia
    • Sarvarthapedia (Core Areas)
    • Systemic-and-systematic
    • Volume One
08/04/2026
  • Geo-Political

Press Call by an USA Administration Official on the President’s Call with Russian President Vladimir Putin-12/02/2022

President Biden was clear that, if Russia undertakes a further invasion of Ukraine, the United States together with our Allies and partners will respond decisively and impose swift and severe costs on Russia.
advtanmoy 13/02/2022 9 minutes read

© Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
USA

Home » Law Library Updates » Sarvarthapedia » Geo-Political » Press Call by an USA Administration Official on the President’s Call with Russian President Vladimir Putin-12/02/2022

Readout of President Biden’s Call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. spoke today with President Vladimir Putin of Russia about Russia’s escalating military buildup on the borders of Ukraine. President Biden was clear that, if Russia undertakes a further invasion of Ukraine, the United States together with our Allies and partners will respond decisively and impose swift and severe costs on Russia. President Biden reiterated that a further Russian invasion of Ukraine would produce widespread human suffering and diminish Russia’s standing. President Biden was clear with President Putin that while the United States remains prepared to engage in diplomacy, in full coordination with our Allies and partners, we are equally prepared for other scenarios.

Law

Read Next

  • U.S.–North Macedonia Trade Agreement Marks a Turning Point for the Western Balkans
  • Fundamental Analysis of Nuclear Threshold by India and Pakistan
  • North Korea–Belarus Relations 2026: Historic Talks Between Kim Jong and Lukashenko in Pyongyang

Background Press Call by a Senior Administration Official on the President’s Call with Russian President Vladimir Putin

FEBRUARY 12, 2022

Via Teleconference

12:53 P.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone, for joining us today.  Today’s call will be on background, attributed to a “senior administration official.”  And contents will be embargoed until the conclusion of the call. 

Read Next

  • U.S.–North Macedonia Trade Agreement Marks a Turning Point for the Western Balkans
  • Fundamental Analysis of Nuclear Threshold by India and Pakistan
  • North Korea–Belarus Relations 2026: Historic Talks Between Kim Jong and Lukashenko in Pyongyang

Today’s speaker will be [senior administration official], who will have some comments at the top and then take a few questions.

Over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  And thanks, everybody, for taking the time. 

Read Next

  • U.S.–North Macedonia Trade Agreement Marks a Turning Point for the Western Balkans
  • Fundamental Analysis of Nuclear Threshold by India and Pakistan
  • North Korea–Belarus Relations 2026: Historic Talks Between Kim Jong and Lukashenko in Pyongyang

So, the call between the two presidents was professional and substantive.  It lasted a bit over an hour.  There was no fundamental change in the dynamic that has been unfolding now for several weeks, but we believe that we have put ideas on the table that would be in our and our allies’ interest to pursue, that would enhance European security, and that would also address some of Russia’s stated concerns, just as we have been clear that we are committed to upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the rights of states to choose their own security arrangements. 

But it remains unclear whether Russia is interested in pursuing its goals diplomatically as opposed to through the use of force. 

We remain committed to keeping the prospect of de-escalation through diplomacy alive.  But we are also clear-eyed about the prospects of that, given the readily apparent steps Russia is taking on the ground in plain sight, right before our eyes.  Stakes — the stakes of this are too high not to give Russia every chance to avoid an action that we believe would be catastrophic. 

So, as always, we continue along two paths: diplomacy, including maintaining close alignment with our partners and allies, as evidenced by the President’s repeated bilateral engagements, including with President Zelenskyy, his call yesterday with key allies, and today’s call with President Putin, as well as other senior officials’ calls with their counterparts in all of these same categories. 

Meanwhile, we are intensifying our efforts to deter Russia and to impose costs should it decide to go ahead with military action anyway. 

You will have seen the announcement yesterday of an additional 3,000 U.S. forces headed to Poland.  Our deliveries of security assistance to Ukraine have continued in recent days, and our discussions with the EU, UK, Canadian, and other partners and Allies to ensure that we are prepared to immediately impose severe financial sanctions and export controls are also reaching a culmination point. 

We are continuing to reduce our diplomatic presence in Kyiv, as you’ve seen, and the President was very direct with President Putin about our concern for the safety and security of Americans still in Ukraine. 

Whatever Russia decides, our assessment is that their efforts to improve their strategic position are already failing and that this will only be exacerbated should they decide to take military action. 

The transatlantic relationship is more closely aligned than it has been in quite some time.  NATO is stronger and more purposeful.  Russia is already finding itself increasingly isolated from the wider world and more dependent on China, having together revealed a fundamentally different worldview at odds with the principled, affirmative, international law-abiding worldview and values that we stand for. 

And Russia is finding itself on defense in the information space, given our own transparency about its intention. 

Over time, if Russia invades, this list will also include a severe economic cost that I’ve already described and irrevocable reputational damage caused by taking innocent lives for a bloody war choice. 

The two presidents agreed that our teams will stay engaged in the days ahead.  Russia may decide to proceed with military action anyway.  Indeed, that is a distinct possibility. 

If it does, the damage to Ukraine, to European security, and, yes, to Russia will be profound.  That is an outcome President Biden believes we should continue to work hard to avert.

Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Operator, we’re ready for questions now.

Q    Thank you so much for doing the call.  Could you talk a little bit about, you know, anything that President Biden brought to the table today in terms of proposals, as far as an off-ramp that he thinks can get us to de-escalation?  And then, could you also talk a little bit about if you had any signs that an operation was more imminent than thought before?  Thank you. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Trevor.  So, look, our view is that we have brought serious, substantive ideas to the diplomatic table for a period of weeks now.  Many of those ideas are in the public domain already.  We have offered those directly to the Russians in diplomatic discussions.  We have developed them in close consultation with our partners and Allies.  And President Biden continued to take that approach in the call with President Putin.

We have also been very clear that our strong preference is not to negotiate in public because we don’t believe that that is the best way to find a path to de-escalation, which is our main priority for these diplomatic conversations. 

So, I am not going to get into very many of the details of this portion of the conversation, but I would say the President continued down the path that we have been on for quite some time, which is a mode of problem solving and finding solutions that are in our interest, the interest of our partners and Allies, and that can address at least some of the concerns that Russia has raised.

Q    Hi, thank you for doing this, [senior administration official].  Two questions.  You said that an attack was a “distinct possibility.”  The tone of the briefing yesterday was that the attack was imminent and the decision had been taken.  Can you elaborate on that?

And then, in terms of continuing to provide Ukraine with military equipment, would that continue after a military attack by Russia, and might the nature of that support change?  I’m thinking of things like anti-aircraft weapons and so on.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I guess I’d say two things: I would direct you to comments that my colleague, Jake Sullivan, made on this notion of whether President Putin has made a decision.  You know, I think the honest answer to that question is we don’t have full visibility into President Putin’s decision making.  You’d have to direct that question to the Kremlin or to President Putin himself. 

But, you know, we are not basing our assessment of this on what the Russians say publicly.  We are basing this assessment on what we are seeing on the ground with our own eyes, which is a continued Russian build-up on the border with Ukraine and no meaningful evidence of de-escalation or, really, of any interest in de-escalation.  So, our sense is that the trends that we’ve been seeing and talking about for many weeks now are continuing.  And, you know, beyond that, I don’t think we have any real insights to offer.

As to our plans going forward, I think President Biden and other officials have been clear that should Russia continue down the path to escalation, the United States will continue to increase our support to Ukraine to enable it to defend itself.  And, you know, that approach has not changed.

Q    Hi.  Thanks.  So, I’m wondering if you can talk a little bit about whether or not the alleged false-flag plans were discussed in the call, and what — if so, if you can characterize Putin’s response at all.

And also, there were reports of a sort of close encounter between Russian and American submarines today, and I’m wondering if they discussed that as well.  Thanks.  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, on your first point, I mean, I think, as a general matter, you can conclude that the issues that we raised concerns about publicly are raised privately between the two presidents.  They have conversations that are quite direct, I would say, on both sides.  And so, if there’s an issue that we have been bringing to your attention through briefings and in other fora, you can conclude that the presidents have widely discussed that as well.

But beyond that, I don’t want to get into the specifics of what we raised, and certainly not — I certainly don’t go — we don’t go down the road of characterizing President Putin’s response.  That’s just not something we tend to do with the other sides of these conversations in these readouts.

On this close encounter, I would really direct you to the Pentagon for that.  You know, I don’t have any information to provide about that on this call.

MODERATOR:  All right, thanks, everyone.  We have to wrap now.  With the conclusion of the call, the embargo is lifted. 

A friendly reminder, we’re on background, attributed to a “senior administration official.”  Thanks all.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you. 

1:03 P.M. EST


Tags: 2022 CE LEGAL Vladimir Putin

Post navigation

Previous: KERALA STATE HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE EXAMINATION QUESTION PAPER PATTERN
Next: Remarks by President Xi Jinping at Welcome Banquet for Beijing Winter Olympics 2022 – 05/02/2022
Communism
Sarvarthapedia

Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848: History, Context, and Core Concepts

Arrest
Sarvarthapedia

Latin Maxims in Criminal Law: Meaning, Usage, and Courtroom Application

Abolition of Slave Trade Act 1807: Facts, Enforcement, and Historical Context

British Slavery and the Church of England: History, Theology, and the Codrington Estates

United States of America: History, Government, Economy, and Global Power

Biblical Basis for Slavery: Old and New Testament Laws, Narratives, and Interpretations

Rule of Law vs Rule by Law and Rule for Law: History, Meaning, and Global Evolution

IPS Cadre Strength 2025: State-wise Authorised Strength

Uric Acid: From 18th Century Discovery to Modern Medical Science

Christian Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal Views

Origin of Central Banking in India: From Hastings to RBI and the History of Preparatory Years (1773–1934)

Howrah District Environment Plan: Waste Management, Water Quality & Wetland Conservation

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Sections (1-358), Punishments, and Legal Framework

Bengali Food Culture: History, Traditions, and Class Influences

  • Sarvarthapedia

  • Delhi Law Digest

  • Howrah Law Journal

  • Amit Arya vs Kamlesh Kumari: Doctrine of merger
  • David Vs. Kuruppampady: SLP against rejecting review by HC (2020)
  • Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1184)
  • Geeta v. Ajay: Expense for daughter`s marriage allowed in favour of the wife
  • Ram v. Sukhram: Tribal women’s right in ancestral property [2025] 8 SCR 272
  • Naresh vs Aarti: Cheque Bouncing Complaint Filed by POA (02/01/2025)
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS)
  • Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA): Indian Rules for Evidence
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023
  • The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest
  • U.S. Supreme Court Orders
  • U.k. Supreme Court Orders
United Kingdom, UK

Abolition of Slave Trade Act 1807: Facts, Enforcement, and Historical Context

British Slavery and the Church of England: History, Theology, and the Codrington Estates

British Slavery and the Church of England: History, Theology, and the Codrington Estates

USA, America

United States of America: History, Government, Economy, and Global Power

Biblical Basis for Slavery, english slave trade

Biblical Basis for Slavery: Old and New Testament Laws, Narratives, and Interpretations

2026 © Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • About
  • Global Index
  • Judicial Examinations
  • Indian Statutes
  • Glossary
  • Legal Eagle
  • Subject Guide
  • Journal
  • SCCN
  • Constitutions
  • Legal Brief (SC)
  • MCQs (Indian Laws)
  • Sarvarthapedia (Articles)
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs
  • Library Updates