folks, look, this is about, this is about how we move from here. this is i listen to, again, a significant portion of what president food press conference was. and as he pointed out, this is about practical, straightforward no nonsense. decisions that we have to make her not make, we'll find out within the next 6 months to a year. whether not, we actually have a strategic dialogue matters. we'll find out whether we work to deal with everything from release of people in, in russia, prisons or not. we'll find out whether we have a cybersecurity arrangement that began to bring some order. because look, the countries that most are likely to be damaged. failure to do that, are the major countries. for example, i talked about the pipeline that cyber hit for 5000000,

the wrench and we're hitting the united states. i looked at him and said, how would you feel if ransomware took on the pipelines from your oil, feels sure it would matter. this is not about just our self interest. so at a mutual self interest, i'll take your questions and as usual, folks, they gave me a list of the people i'm going to call on. so jonathan associated press. thank you, sir. us intelligence has said that russia tried to interfere in the last 2 presidential elections, and that russia groups are behind hacks like solar winds. and some of the rants where attacks you just mentioned booting and his news conference just now accepted no responsibility for any misbehavior. your predecessor opted not to demand a prudent stop these disruptions. so what does something concrete sir, that you would cheve today to prevent that from happening again and what will the consequences you threaten? whether i stopped it from happening again?

he knows i will take action. like we did when this last time out, what happened was we in fact made it clear that we were not going to continue to allow us to want. the end result was we ended up withdrawing and they went to join ambassadors. we closed down some of their facilities in the united states, etc. he knows the consequences. so look, one of the consequences that i know, i don't know, i should say a sound fair of me. i suspect you may all think doesn't matter. i'm conference matters to him, a comp matter to him and other world leaders of big nations. his credibility worldwide shrinks. let's get this straight. how to be in the united states reviewed by the rest of the world. as interfering with the lectures directly of other countries. and everybody knew it. what would it be like if we engage in activities that he is engaged in?

it diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure maintains of standing as a major world power. and so it's not just what i do is what the actions that other countries take in this case, russia that are contrary to international norms is the price they pay. they are not, they are not able to dictate what happens in the world or other nations of significant consequence. i. e, the united states of america, we want to mr. president, a quick fall in the same theme of consequences. you said just now, do you spoke to him a lot about human rights? what do you say would happen if opposition later election? devante dies. i made it clear to him that i believe the consequences of that would be devastating for russia. i'll go back to the same point. what do you think happens? what he's saying is not about hurting and evolving all the stuff he says to rationalize

treatment and evolving. and then he dies in prison. i pointed out to him that it matters a great deal when a country in fact, and they asked me why i thought there was important to continue to have problems with the president of syria. i said, because the violation international norm is called a chemical weapons treaty can't be trusted. it's about trust is about their building influence, other nations, and a positive way. look, would you like to trade our economy for rushes? economy? would you like to trade, and by the way, we talked about trade, i don't have any problem doing business with russia as long as they do it, based on the international norms. it's our interest to see the russian people do well. economically, i don't have a problem with that, but if they do not act accordingly, national norms, then guess what?

that will not that one will happen with us. not happening with other nations. and he kind of talked about, didn't you today about how the need to reach out other countries to invest in russia. they will as long as they can convince that in fact the violations, for example, the american businessman, who is in house arrest. and i pointed out, you want to get american business, the invest, let him go. change the dynamic. because american, businessman, they're not, we're ready to show up. they don't want to hang around moscow. i look guys, i know we make foreign policy out to be this great, great skill and somehow is sort of like a secret code tract, all foreign policy. this is a logical extension of personal relationships. it's way human nature functions and understand when you run

a country that does not abide by international norms. and yet you need those international norms to be somehow managed so that you can participate in the benefits of flow from them. it hurt you. that's not a satisfying answer. biden said he didn't. bay russia, you know, by the way, that was a joke. that's not true. but my generic point is it is, it is as more complicated davis chang. i thought i saw david areas. thank you. it's present in the run up to this discussion, this been a lot of talk about the 2 countries spilling down into a, into a cold war. and i'm wondering if there was anything that you emerged from in the discussion that made you think that would take my son is anything that would make you think that mr. brewton has decided to move away from his fundamental role

as a disruptor, particularly disruptor of nato in the united states. and if i could also just follow up on your description of how you gave him a list of critical infrastructure in the united states, did you lay out very clearly what it was that the penalty would be for interfering in that critical infrastructure? did you leave that vague? did he respond in any way to it? you 1st of all, asher. second question. first. i pointed out to him we have significant cyber capability. he knows he doesn't know exactly what it is, but it's significant. and if in fact a violate is basic norms, we will respond cyber. he knows this, i'm away. number 2. i think that the last thing he wants now is a cold war without quoting him, which i don't think is appropriate. i mean, ask rhetorical question. you've got

a multi 1000 mile border with china. china is moving ahead. hell bent on election as they say. seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world, the largest and most powerful military in the world. you're in a situation where your economy is struggling. you need to move it in a more aggressive way in terms of growing it and you, i don't think he's looking for a cold war or the united states. i don't think it's true. but as i said to him, i said your generation of mine are about 10 years apart. this is not a could by moment is used to say back in the sixty's united states by less huggy love each other. but it's clearly not in anybody's interest. your countries are mine for us to be in a situation where we're new cold war. and i truly believe he thinks that he understands that. but that does that mean he's ready to call figure residual,

lay down his arms and say, come on. he still, i believe is concerned about being quote in circles. he still has concern that we in fact are looking to take him down. he still has those concerns, but i don't think they are the driving forces to kind of relationship. he's looking for with united states. jennifer jennifer jacobs. thank you, mr. president. is there a particular reason why this summit lasted only about 3 hours? we know you would maybe a lot of 4 to 5 hours. was there any reason it ran shorter? also did the president said that there were no threats or scare tactics issue. do you agree with that assessment? that there were no threats or scare tests tactic? and also did you touch on afghanistan in the safe withdrawal of troops? yes, yes, yes, and yes,

let me go back to the 1st part of the reason it didn't go on longer is when the last time too had just spent over 2 hours in direct conversation across the table. going in excruciating detail. you may know time i don't, i can't think of one. so we didn't need as we got through when we brought in the larger group part our defense, our intelligence and our foreign well our, my foreign minister was in for a minister. my secretary state was with me the whole time our ambassador and center brought everybody in. we had covered so much. and so there was a summary done by him and by me, what we covered lab are off and blinking talked about what we'd covered. we raised things are required more amplification or made sure we didn't have any misunderstandings. and so it was kind of after 2 hours there, we looked at each other like ok. what next?

what is going to happen next is we're going to be able to look back, look ahead in 3 to 6 months and say, did the things we agreed to sit down and try to work out? did it work? do we, are we closer to a major strategic stability talks and, and progress are we further along in terms of a good down watch that's going to be the test. i'm not sitting here saying because the president and i agree that we would do these things that all of a sudden is going to work. not saying that what i'm saying is, i think there's a genuine prospect to significantly improve relations between our 2 countries. without us giving up a single solitary thing based on principle and or values. no, no, no, no, there is ever no threat for as a matter of fact, i heard he quoted my mom and coach other people the day there was it was very as we say, which will shock you coming from be somewhat colloquial. and we talked about basic

basic fundamental things. it was, it was and you know how i am. i explained things based on personal basis. what happens if, for example, and so there are no threats, just the simple assertions made and no, well if you do that and we'll do this when i said we're just letting him know where i stood, what i thought we could accomplish together. and what did, in fact, if it was more wire violations of american sovereignty, what we would do when he asked us to buy that is he said that he hopes that we're able to maintain some piece of security. and i said that has a lot to do with you. he indicated that he was prepared to quote, help on a canister animal going to detail now and help on on, on a ran and help on. in return we told what we wanted to do relative debris,

some stability and economic security, or physical security to the people of syria and libya. so we had those discussions . mish thanks so much mr. president. did you say that you didn't issue any threats? were there any ultimatums made when it comes to ransomware and how you measure suspect, especially when it comes to these working groups on, on russian meddling and on cybersecurity? well, is going to be real easy. they there for exam on, on cybersecurity, how we're going to work out where they take action against and ransomware, criminals on russian territory. they didn't do it. i don't think they planned it in this case. and are they going to act? we'll find out? will we commit, what can we commit to act in terms of anything affecting him violating

international norms and negative effects for russia? what are we going to agree to do? and so i think we have real opportunities to, to move. and i think that one of the things that i noticed when we had the larger meat is that people who are very, very well inform, started thinking. you know, this can be real problem. how does that ranch for outfit were sitting in florida made and took action. as i said down there they're, they're single lifeline to their economy. oil be devastating and they're like, you could see them kind of go, we do that, but like, whoa, so it's everybody's interested these things back and i will see though, what happens to these groups we put together the 3rd one. yes. mister president, one president put in was question today about human rights. he said the reason why you're cracking down on opposition leaders is because he doesn't want something

like january 6 to happen in rush. and he also says it isn't one of the groups formed like black life matter. what's your response to that, please? my response is kind of when i communicated. and i think that say that's ridiculous . comparison is one thing for literally criminals to break through court and go into the capital, kill a police officer and be held accountable. and that is for people objected marching on a capital one said you are not allowing me to speak freely. you're not allowing me to do a, b, c, or d. and so they're very different criteria. steve, steve, holland, rivers present. sorry, president putin said he was satisfied with the answer you, he about your comment about him being a killer. could you give us your side on this? what did you tell him? he satisfied. why would i bring it up again? that you talk to him?

do you believe you can trust him? look, this is not about trust. this is about self interest and verification of self interest . that's what it's about. so i virtually almost almost anyone that i would work out an agreement with that affected the american people's interest. i don't say, well, i trust you, no problem. i see what happens. you know, is that all expression goes the proof of the put it in the 80. we're going to know shortly. igor, radio free europe, radio, liberty. oh mr. president. hello miss. you want to go on a shade you can. can you see? yeah, yeah. yeah. so i think, you know, i ducks in civil society and the priests are free press continue inside russia. yeah. for example, radio free europe. yes. radio lever at the voice of america. karen time,

tv channel where i work brand that for in agents and several other independent media. so we're essentially being forced out in russia 30 years after president he has and invited us in. my question is, after your talk with president putin, how interested do you think she's improving as a media climate and russia? i wouldn't put it that way. tears are improving the climate. i would in fact put it in terms of how much interest does he have in burnish, in russia's reputation. that is not as jude as not being contrary to democratic principles and free speech. that's a judgment i cannot make. i don't know, but it's not because i think he, he's interested in changing the nature of

a closed society or close government's actions relative to what he thinks is the right of government to do what it does. it's a very different approach. and you know, there's a couple of really good bog. i told him i read a couple, i read most, everything he's written in the species is made and, and i've read a couple very good biographies which many of you have as well. and i think i pointed out to him that russia had an opportunity that brief shining moment after gorbachev and after things began to change drastically to actually generated democratic government. but what happened was it failed, and there was a great, great race among russian intellectuals to determine what form of government would they choose. and how would they choose it?

and based on what i believe, mr. prudent decide it was that russia has always been a major international power when it's been totally united as a russian state, based on ideology, whether it was going back to czar commissars trade through to the, the revolution and russian revolution. and to where they are today. and i think that is clear to me, and i've said that, i think he decided that the way for russia to be able to sustain itself as great quote, great power is to in fact, unite the russian people on just the strength of the government. a government controls not necessarily ideologically, but the government. and i think that's the, that's the choice that was made. i think it, i'm not going to 2nd guess whether it could have been fundamentally different. but

i do think it does not lend itself to russia. maintain itself, was one of the great powers in the world. i think i would come up in this conversation today, did you in terms of the red line that you laid down is military response. an option for a ransomware attack and president who had called you in his press conference, inexperienced person, you famously told him he didn't have a soul. do you now have a deeper understanding of him after this meeting? thank you very much. i know we didn't talk. we're military, you're right. there's no dialogue and also with what you

said at nato, that the biggest problem right now are russia and china. you've spoken many times about how you've spent, perhaps more time with president she than any other world leaders. so is there going to become a time where you might call him old friend the old friend and ask him to open up china to the world health organization. investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of cobra, 1900 simply straight renewals. are there while we're not all french? it's just pure business. so i guess my question would be, but you've said that you're going to press china, you signed on to the g 7 communique but said you the g 7 were calling on china to open up to let the investigators in. but trying to basically says they don't want to be interfered with any more. so what happens now? the impact the world's attitude toward china as a develops, trying to trying very hard to project itself as a responsible and very,

very forthcoming nation. they are trying very hard to talk about how they're taking and helping the world in terms of coven 19 vaccines are trying very hard look certain things you don't have to explain to the people of the world. the see, the result is china really actually trying to get to the bottom of this one thing i did discuss as i told you in you and the g 7 and what nato, what we should be doing and what i'm going to make an effort to do is rally the world to work on what is going to be the physical mechanism available to detect early on the next pandemic, and have a mechanism by which we can respond to it and respond to it early is going to happen is going to happen. we need to do that. thank you. the a little while you've been listening to us president joe biden holding

a press conference after meeting his russian countertops. i'm a person who also the press conference now biden says there is no substitute for face to face discussion and is described a desire to cooperate where it's in the mutual interest. but he also says he laid out what he called the basic rules of the road. he also described how in the talks, he emphasized the importance of fundamental human rights and us values computing case in the valley. us citizens being held in russia, a free press, and he also criticized election interference. ultimately, either he's repeatedly described the need for a stable and predictable relationship. and so then are launching a bilateral strategic stability in dialogue. well, let's now bring in our white house correspondent, kimberly how good she's following all this forth in geneva. kimberly, we had a slightly different turn there from president biden, speaking about the good and positive talks, but also really trying to describe to just how we tried to draw some boundaries around american values. i think what we got there

is a framework and that's exactly what the united states had intended to do. going into these talks that there was a desire to put in place a framework for future discussion. and we got the details on that. finally, from the us president, with the face to face meetings that took place in 2 parts with firstly the vladimir putin and joe biden, and their foreign ministers, and then later with their respective delegations. what we know is that as you point out the basic rules of the road in a number of critical areas, whether it be cyber intrusions, whether it be attacks on infrastructure or whether is with respect to arms control and making sure that the world does not become a more dangerous place, these are the areas where they have been able to nail down at least a specific framework. we heard that there will be a bilateral group that will need the diplomats as well as military leaders in order to work out that framework to as the us president put, make sure there are no, i'm intended consequences as well. what is so critical to so many americans,

ordinary americans who found themselves suddenly with the gas shortage, is after around some where attack interrupted the colonial pipeline. and led to gas shortage is all up and down the eastern united states. is it now? there will be this critical infrastructure that has been identified and that will be off limits for a tax moving forward. white house correspondent, kimberly how come across that for us from geneva. thank you so much. kimberly. it will let me bring in a different that a, get it a james space has also been watching from london. james, in his words, not a combine on women, but also not time for new cold war. i mean, this is always going to be a balancing act for joe biden. what do you make of how you tackled it? i think is always going to be a balancing act dealing with let me push and remember, this is a man who's run russia for more than 2 decades. no one thinks that he's going to change the way he operates all the way he runs russia. so the answer is trying to manage the relationship and certainly they're trying to defuse the set tensions.

first we're going to guess it seems diplomats returning who been expelled and the basses to ambassadors who drawn, coming back. so there's going to be some dialogue that between the 2 countries we're going to have working groups on key issues on nuclear security, but also on cyber, which seems to be the current particular flashpoint job by making it clear that there have been no threats or ultimatums in the meeting boss, i quote you one the part of the of the comments on cyber. if there was to be another cyber attack, he said, we have significant side, but capability. we will respond with a cyber. so although he says that wasn't a threat, certainly it's implied that, that the u. s. could, could respond with a cyber attack against russia if, if there was to be other attacks coming from russian soil. interesting that he says the most recent attacks don't think well actually organized by the russian

government, but carried out by criminals on russian soil that he says it's now the responsibility of the russian government to actually bring those criminals to account. we'll have to see with all this and i think that was very clear from the president. he said the proof of the pudding is in the eating. and the time scale he gave was 3 to 6 months. remember, he's been part of a ministration before when he was vice president biden. the did a big reset the start of the bomber administration. when hillary clinton was the sexiest state she went that moscow and they tried this whole reset, it didn't come to thing and relations deterioration. but there has been this flow of patience between the u. s. and russia and quite where they've been very low recently. perhaps right now we're coming to one of the higher points as a result of this summit. that's what they'll be hoping. whitehouse indeed both sides saying they're constructive. pragmatic talks out diplomatic. james, based across that for us from london. thanks, james. well,

we've been bringing new special coverage here of that very high stakes summit. us president joe biden meetings out of prison in geneva. those talks of wrapped up we've been hearing from both men will be bringing you much more analysis on that here on out there, stay with us in energy to every part of our universe or small to continue the change all around the shape, my technology and human ingenuity we can make it work for you and your business.

most people will never know what's beyond these. the deafening silence of 100000 for how it feels to touch danger every day. most people will never know what it's like to work with. every breath is pressure with fear is not an option, but we're not most people a city defined by military occupation. there's never been an arab state. he with the capital of jerusalem. everyone is welcome. but the default section that meant in the colonial project, that's what we refuse. was one of the founders of the settlement with this and the story of jerusalem through the eyes of its own people, segregation, occupation discrimination injustice. this is tied in 21st century drew for them,

a rock and a hard place on al jazeera. there is no channel that covers the world news like we do, we revisit places the state are really invest in that. and that's the privilege. as a journalist, ah, this is al jazeera, ah, hello there, i'm this does the at hand, this is the news line from our headquarters here and coming up in the next 60 minutes to present. my agenda is not against russia or anyone else. it's for the american people, the us and russian president wrap up their summit in geneva describing it as positive and constructive.