This week in Washington, War Fever fully took hold. At briefings this week, members of

the White House press corps took turns trying to find new ways to push the U.S. into direct

military conflict with Russia.

So, once again, other Ukrainian officials have made so clear that what they believe they

need the most is more warplanes and fighter jets. So why is the U.S. believe they know better

what Ukraine means than what Ukrainian officials are saying they need the most?

It sounds like we're pretty dug in on our position when it comes to the no-fly zone, when

it comes to the MIGs, to put it bluntly as Lensky wasting his time tomorrow.

On the aircraft specifically, the Pentagon said last week that Secretary Austin said they

do not support the transfer of additional fighter aircraft at this time. Is that still

the United States' position?

Did a strike in Poland on supplies or anything really automatically met with a military

forceful response, which is the conversation amongst allies about how to respond?

There are reports that a Russian drone made its way into Polish airspace before going back

to Ukraine and being shot down.

Does a drone into Poland count?

Is the President showing enough strength against Putin?

Putin wore to use chemical weapons. Would it change the President's thinking when it

comes to these MIGs taking the no-fly zone on the table?

But if we stand as if you prepared, can you give us any more details about what that threat

means of severe consequences? The President obviously made the same threat last week. Is

that purely economic consequences? Or would there potentially be a military cut?

...