Arabic Arabic Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified) Dutch Dutch English English French French German German Italian Italian Portuguese Portuguese Russian Russian Spanish Spanish
| (844) 627-8267

It’s Sunday night in Kyiv. Here’s what you need to know | #socialmedia | #hacking | #aihp

US Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner holds a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC in April 2021. (Saul Loeb/Pool/AFP/Getty Images)

US Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner avoided directly criticizing President Biden’s remark Saturday that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power,” instead shifting focus onto Putin, saying, “There is one individual that’s trying to make regime change in Europe, and that’s Vladimir Putin trying to change the regime in Ukraine.”

Asked by CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” if he thinks the United States’ policy should be for a regime change, Warner said, “The stated policy is the White House’s point and that has not changed. It is up to the Russian people to determine who’s going to be in power in the Kremlin.”

Rep. Michael McCaul, lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was more forceful in his interview a short time later on the show, saying “I know it was off the cuff, but whatever the President says, it carries a lot of weight … In this case, it sends a very provocative message to Mr. Putin.”

Warner said he was surprised Russia has not launched “their A-team cyberattacks against Ukraine,” which Warner called, “top-notch.” Asked why he thinks they haven’t, Warner said, “We don’t honestly have a good answer yet,” adding, “I don’t think it’s the lack of capability but this is a question that we are constantly posing.”

Asked whether cyberattacks would invoke NATO’s Article 5, Warner said, “There are cyberattacks from Russia and China going on on a daily basis for years,” but added that if a cyberattack results in the loss of life, that would be “uncharted territory”

“In terms of literally causing loss of life, there’s always been what we call strategic ambiguity about what is defined as an Article Five violation. I think that it is still an appropriate grayness at this point.”


Click Here For The Original Source.