 All right, good afternoon, everyone. Thanks very much for your patience. Just a few things here, and we'll get right to your questions. And so earlier today, Secretary Austin spoke by phone with Turkish Minister of National Defense, Yusar Guler, to discuss Turkish activity in proximity to US forces in Syria. The Secretary reaffirmed that the United States remains in Syria exclusively in support of the campaign to defeat ISIS. The Secretary also acknowledged Turkey's legitimate security concerns and underscored the importance of close coordination between the United States and Turkey to prevent any risk to US forces or the global coalition's defeat ISIS mission. Separate but related, the Department of Defense also condemns the recent terrorist attack at the Turkish Interior Ministry, and we wish those injured a speedy recovery. We will post a readout of the call later today on the DOD website. Separately, Secretary Austin also spoke with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg today to review priorities for next week's NATO Defense Ministerial in Brussels, scheduled for October 11 through 12. The two leaders discussed a range of transatlantic security issues focused on implementing Vilnius Summit deterrence and defense deliverables, as well as ongoing NATO operations in the Balkans and Iraq. A full readout of the call is available on defense.gov. And looking ahead to next week, Secretary Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Brown will depart Washington on Tuesday for Brussels, Belgium, where they'll host an in-person meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group on October 11. This will be the 16th meeting of the UDCG, since Secretary Austin formed the International Coalition in April 2022. And following the contact group meetings, Secretary Austin will subsequently participate in the NATO Defense Ministerial at NATO headquarters. And with that, we'll be happy to take your questions. We'll start with AP Tarkat. Thanks, General Ryder. She said the Secretary spoke to his Turkish counterpart about the shootdown of the Turkish drone. How concerned was the Secretary that these troops were put at risk and that despite multiple attempts to, I guess, de-conflict and get US troops out of danger, it still had to come to this? Yeah, so first of all, just a little context up front. Turkey is one of our strongest and most valued NATO allies. And that partnership continues and will continue. So this is certainly a regrettable incident. At approximately 7.30 local time in Syria today, our forces had observed UAVs conducting air strikes in the vicinity of Hasaka, Syria. Some of those strikes were inside a declared US restricted operating zone, or ROZ near Hasaka, and were approximately a kilometer away from US forces who relocated to bunkers. At approximately 11.30 local time, a Turkish UAV re-entered the ROZ on a heading toward where US forces were located. US commanders assessed that the UAV, which was now less than a half a kilometer from US forces to be a potential threat, and US F-16 fighters subsequently shot down the UAV in self-defense at approximately 11.40 local time. It's important to point out that no US forces were injured during the incident. We have no indication that Turkey was intentionally targeting US forces. And as I mentioned, the Secretary did talk to his Turkish counterpart and reaffirmed our commitment to continue to closely coordinate. I mean, Turkey is a NATO ally. And is this the first time that you can recall that a NATO ally has had to shoot down the aircraft of another NATO partner? Yeah, I think, again, it's a regrettable incident, but US commanders on the ground did assess that there was a potential threat, and so they took prudent action in this scenario. But again, the Secretary has talked to his counterpart. They had the opportunity to have a fruitful conversation, and again commit to one another that the US and Turkey will continue to closely communicate and coordinate. And as I mentioned, Turkey does remain a very important and valuable NATO ally and partner to the United States. Let me go to Courtney. On the phone call, did the Turks bow not to do this again, not to fly their drones over US? Or you said they were dropping ordnance from the UAVs a kilometer away from the US? I said they were observed conducting airstrikes. And including one that came about a kilometer away from US troops? They were conducting airstrikes inside a declared US restricted operating zone. Did they have to, on this phone call, did they agree not to do that anymore, or is that? Well, I won't speak for the Turkish minister. I would say that the bottom line is it was a very productive discussion on both sides. And again, a commitment that we would continue to closely coordinate to prevent putting US forces at risk, a reaffirmation of the strong partnership that our two countries share, and also an acknowledgment that, again, we will keep lines of communication open, particularly given that region of the world and the focus on the defeat ISIS mission. Can you say a little bit about how the US communicated with the Turks before and told them that they would shoot the drone down? Yeah, so I don't want to get into specifics other than to say that we have multiple channels of communication at multiple levels. As you know, US forces, as part of the Global Coalitions Defeat ISIS, have been operating in that area for a while. And of course, being on the border of Turkey and having US forces stationed in Turkey, we have multiple ways to communicate with our Turkish allies. But can you say about what level it escalated to before the shoot down? I mean, did it get as high as the commander of Central Command or something like that? How high up did it go? It went to a high enough level within the operational chain of command. I'll just leave it at that. Matt. So to be clear, the concern here was that that drone, you said, re-entered, got within a half kilometer that it might have launched an air-to-ground missile so close to US forces that it could have endangered their lives? Again, based on the observation of airstrikes being conducted and the fact that this drone was upwards of nearly half a kilometer from US forces, US commanders made the determination that it was a self-defense threat and so appropriate action was taken. So how concerning is it that, as my colleague said, with a NATO ally puts the US in a position to take self-defense actions, either through negligence or otherwise? Well, look, again, this is a regrettable incident and Secretary Austin has spoken with the Minister of Defense in Turkey. And again, we will communicate at all levels. And so we will stay focused on the defeat ISIS mission in Syria. That's why we're there in the first place. And so that will continue to remain our focus. Thank you. Sir. Thank you very much, General. First question. Was the United States or the chain of command really thinking that the Turkish UAVs were going to strike American bases there? Is that why this strike was done, letting the Turkish UAVs shot down? Because all rules of engagement have changed. That's why this incident took place. Yeah, well, again, as I laid out, based on the situation on the ground and based on the observation, the decision was made out of due diligence and the inherent right of self-defense to take appropriate action to protect US forces. As I said, based on the discussions with the Turkish Defense Minister and post-shootdown analysis, we have no initial indications that Turkey was intentionally targeting US forces. Again, it was a regrettable incident. And we will continue to keep those lines of communication open to hopefully prevent these types of incidents from happening. One last question, please. So you told Sierra and Turk just last night that the United States stands firmly by Turkey and its people in their legitimate fight against the PKK. And according to your NATO ally, they're doing exactly that in northern and northeast in Syria. So this difference of opinion in the terminology PKK, YPG, SDF, how are you looking to resolve that? Or are these two NATO guys going to keep shooting each other? Yeah, thanks, Eunice. Well, let me just reiterate what I provided to you yesterday. And you're right, as I said in my opening comments, we do stand firmly with our NATO ally, Turkey, and the Turkish people in their fight against the PKK. And the PKK has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States. So we condemn any act of terrorism against Turkey and the people of Turkey. And we recognize that the PKK poses a legitimate security threat. When it comes to northern Syria, we do remain concerned about the potential impacts of military escalation in that region in so much as it affects the civilian population and importantly, as it affects our ability to maintain focus on rooting out ISIS. And so the coalition and the United States remain very, very focused on rooting out the last elements of ISIS in this region. And so the potential for military escalation in that region can serve to become a distraction on this critical work, create instability in the region. And we've talked about this before. It's been a hard-fought battle to prevent ISIS from resurging. And so that is what we're gonna continue to stay focused on. We're gonna continue to advocate for de-escalation in the maintenance of ceasefires. But we will never question Turkey's legitimate right to protect its people from terrorists. Thank you very much, sir. Sir, do you have a, first you said, you mentioned that there's no indication that the Turkish UAVs were targeting U.S. forces. Do you have an indication of what they may have been targeting in the area? I'd refer you to Turkey to talk about their operations. Okay. Do you have a sense of whether this was a Turkish military drone or perhaps from another agency? Yeah, I'd refer you to Turkey to talk about their operations and their equipment, yes, ma'am. Thank you. Turkey says that terrorists, too, were planning suicide attack in Ankara came from Syria and that they warned third parties, which is obviously the U.S., to await PKKYPG facilities. I'm just following up my colleague's question, actually. What kind of facilities have been in those U.S. restricted areas, YPG, STF, or solely U.S.? Yeah, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're asking, but in terms of U.S. presence in northeast Syria, I mean, if you've been following this since 2014, at the height of ISIS, the United States has maintained a presence in this ungoverned space, working very closely with our vetted local partners in the region, the Syrian Democratic Forces. And so that as part of a global coalition to defeat ISIS is what we continue to stay focused on. But as I mentioned to your colleague, Eunice, when it comes to the PKK, we recognize and have declared the PKK, a foreign terrorist organization, and again, fully understand Turkey's legitimate right to defend itself. Yeah, let me move on, Chris. Thanks, Pat. To clarify something, you said there are multiple levels of communications with the Turks. Did the U.S. make repeated requests regarding this incident that the drone leave that area and warned that if it did not, or if it encroached again, action would be taken against it? And did Turkey acknowledge those requests before this action was taken? Yeah, thanks, Chris. I'm not going to go into the specifics other than to say, yes, we did communicate with Turkey, our inherent right to self-defense in the face of a potential threat. But again, in this particular case, it's a regrettable incident. No U.S. forces were harmed. We took appropriate action based on the situation on the ground. Thank you. Fadi. Thank you, General. I'm still confused trying to understand what really happened, because you say it's a great terrible incident. Not sure what part is regrettable, when you have two NATO allies and there's an incident like this. So again, the Secretary was able to have a phone call with his counterpart this morning and talk about the situation. Again, no U.S. forces were harmed, but because of the proximity of the drone to U.S. forces in Osaka, and based on the observations that this was an armed drone that had been conducting strikes, we took appropriate due diligence. And you said, initial indication, there's no intention on the Turkish side to target U.S. forces. However, how did you assess that, or the commanders on the ground assess there was a threat to U.S. forces that, and they deemed it necessary to take actions to protect U.S. forces? Right, well, at the time, you don't know what you don't know. You're making observations and you have to take quick action to, again, ensure the inherent right of self-defense. What I'm telling you is, subsequently, as we look at this and as we've had those conversations, you know, the initial indications are that there was no. In the phone call, was the Secretary able to get any guarantees from the Turkish side that these operations will not happen again in these restricted areas or cause restrictions? Yeah, again, without speaking for the Turkish defense minister, the tone of the conversation was, again, an understanding that we are too close NATO allies, that we will keep the lines of communication, that we don't want to put our forces, each other's forces in harm's way. But also, again, emphasizing the importance of the defeat ISIS mission. And that was a sentiment expressed on both sides. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, General. I have two questions. I have a question regarding reports suggesting that cooperation between the Iraqi central government and Kurdistan forces Peshmerga has been highly effective in countering and reducing ISIS activities. Could you please provide your comment on this matter? Sure. Yeah, I'll provide a broad perspective and I would also encourage you to talk to CJTF OIR, which is squarely focused on supporting Iraq in the defeat ISIS mission. But largely speaking, as you know, I think that one of the key aspects of success in the defeat ISIS mission has been the collaboration between the ISF and Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq by working together against a common enemy, which is ISIS. And so certainly, you know, that is something that I think has benefited not only Iraq, but the region. Thank you. Another question, General. You announced yesterday that you had transferred Iranian weapons bound for the Houthis in Yemen to Ukraine. So three part questions. Two. Is Iran continuing to send arms to the Houthis? Is it your policy to seize such weapons when you can and when appropriated, transfer them to your allies? Yeah, so I'm not going to speculate about the potential future operations. Certainly in the past, we have seen Iran attempting to deliver weapons in aid to groups like the Houthis. And in the past, in violation of multiple international laws, those assets have been seized. Whether or not we will replicate this remains to be seen. Certainly when we did this, we did it under legal authorities in this particular case. The U.S. filed a forfeiture complaint over ammunition received or seized by the U.S. Navy from a flagless vessel that had been transiting the Arabian Sea from Iran in early of December, 2022. And so this forfeiture action is a product of the U.S. government's coordinated effort to enforce U.S. sanctions against the IRGC and the Iranian regime. And on July 20th of 2023, a final order of forfeiture was issued by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice put out a press release which provides additional information on this forfeiture complaint. So thank you very much, sir. Thank you, sir. Two questions. One, as far as U.S.-India relations are concerned, India made a history recently at the G20 hosting leaders from around the globe. And President Biden was very clear about U.S.-India relations there. And last week here, Indian Forum Minister was in the building, Mr. Jayashanka. So where we do we stand, as far as military-to-military relation after G20 and also if there are any secretaries visiting India or Indian Defense Minister coming here. Yeah, thanks very much for the question. I don't have any announcements to make right now regarding any potential visits, other than to say that, as you know, we very much appreciate our relationship with India on a defense level. We continue to foster a stronger defense partnership with India, and that is something that I think you'll continue to see us do going forward. Well, I am saying that Prime Minister Modi also spoke as far as U.S.-India military-to-military relations and going beyond G20 and our relations because of China's rising in the region and threatening many nations in the region. So where do we stand as far as China's threat to the nations around that region? Well, we've been very clear on this that China remains the pacing challenge for the Department of Defense, and we do appreciate the partnership that we have with India and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region when it comes to preserving individual nations' sovereignty and abiding by the international rules-based order that has preserved peace and stability for many years. Let me go ahead and move on. Let me go, Ro. Yes, sir. Thank you. I want to ask you about the Secretary's meeting with the Japanese Defense Minister yesterday. The Japanese Defense Minister said in the meeting that Japan intends to acquire Tomahawk cruise missile by 2025, one year earlier than originally scheduled. Does the Secretary guarantee the U.S. will provide Tomahawk missiles to Japan by 2025 in the meeting? Yeah, thanks, Ro. So as a matter of policy, we are unable to comment on or confirm potential arms sales or transfers before they're formally notified to Congress. So at this time, in regards to their request, I'd have to refer you to the government of Japan. I would say that we've been very clear that we broadly support efforts by our allies to bolster their self-defense. Thank you very much. And time for one more. Yes, sir. A couple of quick questions on Ukraine funding. You weren't around last week when a lot was happening, but will the- I was in Africa. You were in Africa. And it does rain there, evidently, so. Good. That's why you're so curing. Okay, the ATACM's decision, if and when the President makes it, will it be affected by the lack of 24, if by 24 Ukraine funding? So on ATACMs, I don't have anything to announce or pass along on that front. So, yeah. Well, I'm not asking you to make a decision, not to decision, but given the funding issues, you didn't get 24 funding. If the President makes the decision, do you have money or authority to pull ATACMs from army inventories to send to Ukraine? So what I would say, Tony, is I'm not going to get into the potential impact on specific systems or capability as it relates to Ukraine's security assistance. You know, my colleague Sabrina mentioned earlier this week that we do have enough PDA authority and funding in the short term to last a bit longer and that we will continue. You'll continue to see us announcing PDAs on the regular cadence for the foreseeable future. Certainly, as we move forward, we will need funding from Congress. We'll continue to stay engaged with Congress both sides of the aisle to advocate for the funding that we need, but as it pertains to specific systems or capabilities, I'm just not getting into that. We've got about $5 billion of authority to pull from U.S. inventories. That's correct. We have a little more than $5 billion, I think $5.4 billion in restored PDA authority that remains available for Ukraine. We have about $1.6 billion remaining for replenishment purposes. That's the differences, what you're sure of. What's the latest thinking on a reprogramming request in a one of those arcane budgeting tool that you have available? Sure. So as you know, reprogramming is always an option for urgent needs. At this time right now, though, to my knowledge, no decision has been made on using reprogramming as a way to support Ukraine's security assistance. You know, we remain committed to working with Congress on the Ukraine supplemental and receiving a full budget. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can I call up on that one quick, please? Actually, I'll just do two more. Tom, since you caught my attention, let me go to Mike, and then I'll come to you. Thank you. I wonder if you could talk about the impact, the Russia's decision to move the Black Sea fleet out of Crimea is going to have on the fight? Is it going to have on the fight in there in Ukraine? Yeah, thanks, Mike. What I would tell you is I've seen the press reporting on that. I just don't have anything to pass along on it. I can't corroborate those reports at this time. So thank you. And all right, because you wave nicely, we'll do two more. We'll go Tom, and then the final question. Thank you. I think Sabrina mentioned on Tuesday that part of the decision-making on how the remaining money will be spent will be based on what the controller also says. We have X amount of dollars. We can spend it this way. So is that part of the mix as well? Like you have a certain amount to 5.4, we could spend X, Y, or Z, and the control will tell you how long it'll last? Well, yeah, so it's a great point, right? Because I know the question's come up. Well, how long is that going to last? And the reason that you're not going to hear us put a date on it is because it's all relative to what Ukraine's most urgent security assistance needs are, the situation on the battlefield. And so we will continue to tailor those PDA packages based on what they need on the ground. So again, we have enough funding to last for a bit longer from a Department of Defense standpoint. And you'll see this next week at the UDCG. Secretary Austin remains singularly focused on making sure that we're working with Ukraine and our allies and partners to get what they need to be successful in the battlefield, regardless of what's going on outside. Yes, ma'am? Sorry, another Blasey question. So I know you can't say if the ship's removed, but what effect will this have on the grain deal or the ability for Ukraine to export its grain if those ships are moved further down in Crimea? Yeah, so I hesitate to get into a speculative situation, certainly with Russia withdrawing from the grain deal. We've talked about the fact that this significantly impacts not only people in the region, but people around the world. You know, we were just in Africa, and this was a topic of discussion in terms of the impact of countries like Russia that are using food as a weapon to essentially negatively impact peoples around the world. So while I don't have any information on a potential Russian Navy movement, again, that's really something for them to talk about. I would say largely speaking, you know, it's just very unfortunate that we see a country like Russia using food, weaponizing food. Thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate it.