and of course, the fact that diplomatic relations are so bad at the moment, that's also, you know, a very important thing that the 2 sides wanted to rectify. it seems because at the moment the ambassadors are not in moscow in washington. the u. s. embassy has, as it has had to cut back its staffing after being declared an unfriendly country here in russia. which means that there are certain restrictions on staffing, which means, for example, that the u. s. embassy essentially can even issue us visas to normal russians. so russian tourists, camp car can actually travel to the u. s. at the moment, you know, and these are really, really the bear bear basics of, of relations between 2 countries. you know, even when things are bad, arms control that you're not going to nuke each other and that you have diplomats, you know, working in the countries and keeping kind of that dialogue open. i mean, what the russians make of president biden, especially given his very different style from his predecessor president,

former president donald trump. well, i think it was interesting today. vladimir putin was active, asked about the unpredictability of russian actions. and he said, well actually it's the u. s. that has been unpredictable. and i think that was definitely a sideswipe at donald trump. russia has very much portrayed donald trump in the past during his term as being kind of almost a bull in a china shop, kind of leaving international deals left and right, including arms control treaties. and i think from the beginning, the rush, the russians expected biden to be a bit more predictable, a bit more professional when it comes to keeping to agreements when it comes to diplomatic protocol. and i think it seems that let me put and got what he was hoping for when it comes to that. he talked a few times about the professionalism of his counterpart. i think it does seem that

we're seeing that sort of almost relief shining through that even though things probably will remain bad. and you know, there are all these bones of contention between the us and russia. they, they will be able to at least predict what bite and will do more easily than they could with donald trump beforehand. emily, there were multiple questions put to president fusion about the treatment of jailed opposition leader, alex st, nevada. me. now his answer is, we're quite direct and clear and does that come as any surprise to you that there was no shift from him? i think it's certainly not a surprise that he didn't do a u turn on alex, in of me. russia sees this. i think as a red line, of course they were prepared to listen to bite and talking about no viney,

presumably talking about the opposition, the arrest of various opposition, politicians here as well in the past few weeks. but i don't think that either side in a way expected there to be movement on that. let me put in position consistently has been that alex in albany, and this is the official position of the russian state, of course that alex in avenue was arrested on fraud charges. he said today as well, push and said that he broke his the conditions of his parole. and he even accused alex, a novelty of coming back to russia almost in order to be arrested. or knowing that he would be arrested after having undergone treatment for being poisoned with a military nerve agent. he was, he was got treatment in germany. so i think, you know, would have been a real surprise if he had gone. we'd seen the you turn because i think they see rush and see very much this as something where they don't want people from the outside to be meddling and a red line that they definitely wanted to show to divide and administration today

as well. i think, all right, emily, we'll leave it there. emily? sure. when did you corresponded to moscow? thanks for that. all right, and now let's go to d. w correspondent oliver sata 2, standing by 1st in washington, d. c. hi, oliver. good to see you. and what is the has a big what is the situation in the states with regards to president putin's press conference? has it been received? well, certainly there is a lot of attention and has been a lot of expectation towards this meeting in general. it's been on all tv networks, not only since today, but also starting yesterday. and there has been, i would say some surprise that it sounded like a productive meeting is at least how president putin put it. we're certainly still

waiting for you as president joe biden to give his take on the results. but what we've heard of president putin's press conference is that it sounded as is as if there would have been some agreement in some fields. so there were not high expectations, but especially were talking of very important fields of disarmament that the declaration and talked about tackle this of both countries are interested in reducing their nuclear weapons arsenal. for instance, that is certainly well come, move here in the united states. right, well, i mean, before this, at this, this meeting, joe biden has made the point to show that america is back to stand with nato members. and do you feel that after this meeting, there has been any sort of advancement, a major advancement in their relationship?

well, certainly, if you look back the whole choreography leading to this meeting, the recent days of jo, by 1st meeting, his partner is closing ranks with g 7 and natal leaders after years of difficult transatlantic relations. so with that backing now moving onto his adversary, russia, the russian president vladimir putin going into some tough talk that has been described a still pragmatic, but that's still, it shows a shift and foreign policy. it is tackling some very contentious topics. here schuman rides, the prosecution of opposition, leader, lex, and evolving, for instance, election meddling, all very important topics for the united states right now that we're not mentioned under president trump. and that is essentially what you'll, by the means when he says america's back. and what we've seen here today is basically the u. s. under joe biden, defending democracy against autocrat around the world. right, well, there is a very different approach to president putin and under the trump administration.

how does this new stance towards russia being received in the united states? well, if we talk about foreign policy, then joe biden was elected by the american voters for exactly 2 reasons. and that is number one, reviving the transatlantic partnership. and we have seen that in recent days, at the g 7 and natal summit and number 2 is dealing with the american adversaries. and that is particular china that has to be mentioned here, which is high up on number one of the diplomatic agenda if you will. but russia also is a very important topic because of its aggressive behavior in recent years. cyber attacks election meddling. we've talked about it a lot in the program and what joe biden bowed before meeting president of letting me putin is that he wants to draw some red lines that will no longer be the cause bloss. otherwise, he will, russia will face consequences of the likes of the sanctions that were imposed

a couple weeks ago. so that take is generally welcome here in the united states of the u. s. was seen by some service rather defenseless, under president trump. and obviously a president that has been more impressed by putin and by other autocrats than by its transatlantic partners. oliver. and what has the reaction been so far from some of the comments that came from president tutor with regards to the us in particular about cyber attacks. for example, saying that at the majority of them come from the united states itself and also with regards to other areas such as ukraine and then how's it being received? well certainly we only have this one take right now, and that is a take off of a president defending himself and all diplomatic means. this is certainly a field where we now have to see how joe biden responds. this is certainly

a very important moment to see his response to hear how he taxes. it certainly will not agree on many points that president let me put made here. but of course, has been some surprise also here in american media, oliver and the issue of russian and us prisoners as well was also brought up. i'm assuming that in the us as well, that president britain didn't go as far as to say that they were going to be returned. but this was one of the main issues that was being discussed right in the u. s. before this meeting. certainly this was one of the potential fields where analysts said there could be some agreement made. another very important point is this armament, as you know, both countries have a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. the u. s. say the russia has

a lot more tactical battlefield, nuclear weapons. so that was certainly another field where there was a lot of hope that an agreement can be made. and what we're hearing now is that it sounds like the russian take, at least that they will move forward with this. what we don't know, of course, at this point is whether or not they will reach actual agreements or it's just an attempt basically on both sides to move forward. all right, we'll leave it there, d, w, washington correspondent on a solid. alright and here with me in the studio is our chief international editor richard walker, who's been following this with me. now richard and one of the areas that was also mentioned in this this press conference was strategy and strategic stability. right? yeah, that's right. and yet we've just in the last few minutes have

a statement that the kremlin a joint statement on presidential level us rush for presidential joint statement. talking about this area and saying that the 2 sides have agreed to move towards what they call an integrated bilateral strategic stability dialogue in the near future. now what is strategic stability all about? this is about, you know, trying to create a, me, ensure that the framework of the relationship, the strategic position of each country. there's not, is nothing in the sense inherently unstable. does one hide have a significant advantage in one area that kind of out close to the other? part of this is also the area of crisis stability. what happens if tensions all are in a certain area? can a crisis spiral out of control and potentially trigger war? now interesting to see in the statement that it's almost quite emotive, lee formulated today we reaffirm the principle that

a nuclear war cannot be one must never be false. and talking about, you know, the history of russia, the united states have demonstrating even in times attention that they're able to make progress of these. shad goes and this is only been released by the kremlin so far. so we'll see whether the white house confirms this, but i think it would be very unusual if the white house came out and said no, we have nothing to do with this statement. so i think this is, you know, this is something tangible coming out of this. this is the sort of thing that was expected. you know, that come out of this, the, both sides have been talking in the past about wanting a more predictable, a more stable relationship. between the 2 that that is almost like that should really be the bad minimum situation where attentions do not spar last control. and i think this is a positive sign that it looks like they really have agreed to do that. but then of course,

the proof of the pudding will be in eating. what are they able to achieve through this dialogue? well, they did, i mean you've mentioned that there, and i'm just looking back over my notes about what was mentioned about this strategic stability and how they hold a special responsibility is, will present, improve mentioned yes. well, yeah, that's right. i mean, they have thousands of nuclear weapons, and this is something to remember. you know, there's, there's a lot of talk about china's military capabilities. you know, china is expanding massively and it's military, particularly, it's navy. china does now have the largest navy in the world. but in terms of military weapons, nuclear weapons, it only has warheads going into the hundreds. russia in the united states, both have house. and one of the concrete things that really has to be discussed and they have agreed that they will take up discussions on is replacement for treated this course new starts. so emily and terry of both, who mentioned this treaty, that is a treaty that governs political,

strategic nuclear weapons. and that was just being renewed, prison abiding, agreed to renew it. it had just sort of a renewal deadline that will be renewed for 5 years. but in 2026 according to treaty, it runs out. so they need to come up with a success of that. if they're not going to then suddenly start each wanting to produce many more of these weapons. so, so a process will now begin towards working out, okay, how do they come up with a success into that? and i think it seems that tracy came along the world of nuclear weapons is moved on a bed. and each side now has quite different priorities and concerns about the other side. the russians are particularly concerned about american missile defense and missile defense as because as defensive. what's the problem with that? but of course, if you have better defenses than the other side, need big missiles to get you. so the russians would like to see concessions on the american side of a missile defense. the americans are concerned about innovations that russia and be producing in terms of the kind of chord exotic nuclear weapons deliveries. this is

new types of nuclear, cruise missile and also submarine drones as a nuclear submarine drugs. these are examples of this kind of new types of nuclear weapons that the russians be looking into. so the 2 sides have different concerns about the other side. so that's the kind of complexity the weeds you have to get into when starting to negotiate. and you, st. louis, if the russians will say, well, we want to look at this missile defense the mattress will be se, well we want to look at that. can they kind of balance these things out? but, you know, this is what our control is all about. and this is some things that you know, the world or the 2 sides managed to get sustained throughout the cold war. and the cold war thankfully came to a peaceful end. but there's been a concern in that kind of diplomatic community around thumbs control. the last 4 years or so that it's been kind of falling apart. so this could be assigned to so serious about getting back to this. so there could potentially be this could be the

beginning of se, talks headed in that direction. yeah, it's the talks about the talks about the talks were really the 1st stage of it, but it's certainly a positive side. it's also interesting. there's been a lot of discussion about where the chinese should be brought into. because of course, china would just say this becoming a very significant military power, but it's not yet so significant in the, in the nuclear weapons level. that the chinese, you know, relatively understandably a well, you know, we only have a few 100 nuclear weapons. you have thousands where you get your stand before we talk about out. richard is just going to leave it there for a 2nd cuz we're just going to take a listen now to president vladimir putin and his impressions of the us present. so this is what he had to say about joe, by to me, if you ask me what kind of a person and interlocutor president biden is, i can say that he is a can talk to the person well balanced and experience seasons politician.

and i expected that he recalled his family conversations he had with his mother pretty more with nurturing this things don't have something to do with our business, but nevertheless it shows his qualities and his moral values, it is all appealing to him. and i believe we spoke the same language doesn't necessarily mean that we need to look into the eyes and see this so all right, we're gonna cut short because we're going to cross now back to geneva, where joe barton, this one. well, i've just finished the last meeting. this week's long trip

the u. s. rush summer. and i know there are a lot of hype around this meeting, but it's pretty straightforward to me, the meeting. one, there is no substitute as knows. you've covered me for a while now for face to face dialogue between leaders not and president put and i had a share unique responsibility to manage the relationship between 2 powerful and proud countries. relationship that has to be stable and predictable. and it should be able to, we should be able to cooperate words in our mutual interest and where we have differences. i want to present, put and understand why i say what i say and why i do what i do and how will respond to specific kinds of actions that harm america's interest. now, i told president bush,

my agenda is not against russia or anyone else. it's for the american people. fighting over 90, rebuilding our economy, reestablish relationships around the world are allies in french, protecting the american people. that's my responsibility as president. i also told me that no president, united states could keep faith with the american people. if they did not speak out to defend our democratic values, to stand up for the universal and fundamental freedoms that all men and women have in our view. that's just part of the dna of our country. so human rights is going to always be on the table. i told it's not about just going after russia when they violate human rights. it's about who we are. how could i be the president of the united states of america, and not speak out against the violation human rights?

i told him that, unlike other countries, including russia, were uniquely a product of an idea. you've heard me say this before again, and again, i'm going to keep saying that idea. we don't derive our right from the government. we possess them because we're born period and we yield them through a government. so the form i pointed out to him that that's why we're going to raise our concerns about cases like election evolving. i made it clear to present improvement and will continue to raise issues a fundamental human right. is that what we are? that's who we are. the idea is we hold the true self evident that all men and women . we haven't lived up to completely, but we've always widened the arc of commitment and included more and more people. and i raised the case of 2 wrongfully impressions, american citizens, paul well,

and trevor read. i also raised the ability of radio free europe radio, liberty to operate, and the importance of a free press and freedom of speech. i made it clear that we will not tolerate attempts to violate our democratic sovereignty or to stabilize our democratic elections and we would respond. the bottom line is i told president prudent, we need to add some basic rules of the road that we can all abide by. i also said there areas where there's a mutual interest for us to cooperate for our people, russian and american people. but also for the benefit of the world and the security of the world. one of those areas is strategic stability. you asked me many times, what was i going to discuss with food before i came, i told you i only negotiate with the individual. and now i can tell you what i was intending to do all along. that is to discuss and raise the issue strategic stability and try to set up a mechanism where,

why be we dealt with it. we discussed in detail the next steps are countries to to take on arms control measures the steps we need to take to reduce the risk of unintended conflict. and i'm please you agreed today to launch a bilateral strategic stability dialogue. diplomatic speak for saying get our military experts and our, our, our diplomats together to work in a mechanism that can lead to control of new and dangerous is sophisticated weapons that are coming on the scene. now that reduced to times a response that raised the prospects of accidental war. and we went into some detail of what those weapon systems were. another, we spent a great deal of time on was cyber in cybersecurity. i talked about the proposition that certain critical infrastructure should be off limits to attack period by cyber or any other means i gave them a list if i'm not mistaken, if i don't have it in front of the 16 specific entities. 16 defined as critical

infrastructure under u. s. policy from the energy sector to our water systems. course. the principle is one thing. it has to be backed up by practice. responsible countries need to take action against criminals who conduct ransomware activities on their territory . so we agreed to cash cash experts and both are both our countries to work on specific, understand it's about what is off limits and to follow up on specific cases that originate in other countries. in there either are countries, there is a long list of other things we spent time on. and the urgent need to preserve and reopen humanitarian cartridges, syria, so that we can get food, just simple food and basic necessity, that people are starving to death. how to build it and how it is in the interest of

both rushing the united states to ensure that iran, iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. we agreed to work together there because as much interest in russia interest as ours and to how we can insure the arctic remains and the region of cooperation rather than conflict. i caught part of prejudice. press conference and he talked about the need for us to be able to have some kind of modus operandi where he dealt with making sure the arctic was in fact a free zone. and to how we can each contribute to the shared effort of preventing the reserve researches of terrorism, f. gannon, stan. it's very much in, in, in the interest of russia not to have researches of terrorism. afghans are also areas that are more challenging. i communicated the united states unwavering commitment to the sovereignty and territorial and gritty of ukraine. we agreed to

pursue diplomacy related to the mx agreement. and i shared our concern about baylor bruce. he didn't disagree with what happened. he's just as perspective what to do about it, but i know you have a lot of questions. so let me close that was this. it was important to meet in person. so that can be no mistake about or misrepresentations about what i wanted to communicate. i did what i came to do, number one. and then if i areas of practical work, our 2 countries can do to advance our mutual interest and also benefit the world. to communicate directly directly at united states will respond to actions that impair or vital interest or those of our allies and 3 to clearly lay out our country's priorities in our values. so we heard it straight for me and i must tell

you the tone of the entire meetings, i guess was total 4 hours was was what was, was good positive. there wasn't any, any strident action taken. or we disagreed. i disagree, stated where it was, where he disagreed, he stated, but it was not done in a hyperbolic you atmosphere. that is too much of what's been going on over the last week. i believe i hope united states is showing the world that we are back. standing with our allies rallied our fellow democracies, make concert committee to concert, a commitment to take on the biggest challenge is our world faces. and now we've established a clear basis on how we intend to do with russia and the u. s. russian relationship . there's much more work ahead. i'm not suggesting any, this is done. we've gotten a lot of business done in this trip. and before i take your questions,

i want to say one last thing 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 or not we actually have a strategic dialogue that matters will 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 use look, the countries that most are likely to be damaged. failure to do that are the major countries.