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 see, 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 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 rush in prisons or not. we'll find out whether we have a cybersecurity arrangement that began to bring some order. he's look the countries that most are likely to be damaged. failure to do that. are the major countries. for example,

when i talked about the pipeline that cyber hit for 5000000 ransomware hit united states, i looked at him. i said, well, how would you feel if ransomware took on the pipeline from your oil feels should 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 the prudent stop these disruptions. so what does something concrete, sir, that you would chief 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, what happened was we in fact made it clear that we were not going to continue to allow us to go on. the end result was we ended up withdrawing and they went and joined ambassadors. we closed down some of their facilities in united states, etc. he knows there are consequences. hello. one of the consequences that i know, i don't know, i shouldn't say that sound fair of me. i suspect you may all think doesn't matter. i'm conference matters to him. comp matter to him and other world leaders and 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 elections directly of other countries. and everybody knew it. what would it be like if we

engage in activities that he's engaged? 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. there are other nations of significant consequence. i. e, the united states of america, we want to mr. president, a quick fall and the same theme of consequences. you said just now, do you spoke to him a lot about human rights? what do you say? what happened if opposition later election of only dies? i made it clear to him that i believe the, the consequences of that would be devastating for russia. go back to the same point . what do you think happens when he's saying it's not about hurting,

evolved as he 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 he's violation international norm. it's called a chemical weapons treating can't be trusted, it's about trust is about their ability to influence other nations in 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 with doing business with russian 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 according to national norms, then guess what?

that will not want to happen with us or 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 are convinced that in fact the, the violations, for example, the american businessman, who is in house arrest and i a 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, they don't want to hang around and moscow. i look guys, i know we make foreign policy to be this great, great skill. and somehow it's sort of like a secret code tract. all foreign policy is, is a logical extension of personal relationships where 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, hurt you. that's not a satisfying answer. biden said he didn't invade russia. you know, by the way, that was a joke. that's not true, but my generic point is it is, it is, is more complicated. david sang, italy, so david areas. thank you much present. in the run up to this discussion, there's 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 the discussion that made you think that would take my son or anything. it would make you think that mr. couldn't, 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? your 1st or 2nd question 1st. i pointed out to him we have significant cyber capability. and he knows he doesn't know exactly what it is, but it's significant and it's in fact a violate these basic norms. we will respond cyber. he knows this, i'm number 2 i, i think that the last thing he wants now is a cold war without quoting him,

which i don't think is appropriate. let me ask rhetorical question. you got a multi 1000 mile board in 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 about, as i said to him, i said your generation of mind about 10 years apart, this is not a combine moment is used to say back in the sixty's united states like less hug. i 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 in a new cold war. and i truly believe he thinks that he understands that. but that

does not mean he's ready to quote 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, et cetera. 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. i think thank you, mr. president. is there a particular reason why this summit lasted only about 3 hours? we know you would maybe a lot it a 4 to 5 hours. was there any reason it ran shorter also did the president couldn't said that there were no threats or scare tactics issue. do you agree with that assessment? that there were no threats or gear 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. 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 of 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. we 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 covered. we raise 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 one that's going to be the test. i much thing here saying because the president and i agree that we would do these things and all of a sudden is going to work. not saying 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 quote, other people today. there was, it was very,

as we say, like shock you coming from some a colloquial and we talked about basic basic fundamental things. it was a, it was and you know how i am, i explain things based on personal basis. what happens if, for example, and so there are no threats just as simple assertions made and know, well if you do that and we'll do this, whether the i said we're just letting him know or i stood what i thought we can accomplish together. and what, in fact, if it was we were wired violations of american sovereignty, what we would do when he asked us to buy that. 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 f canister animal. go into detail now and help on on,

on the ran and on. and i in return, we told a lot what we wanted to do relative to bringing some stability and economic security or physical security to the people, syria and libya. so we had those discussions emission 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 do you measure success? especially when it comes to these working groups on, on russian meddling and on cybersecurity? well, is going to be real easy. they are, for example, on, on cybersecurity are going to work out where they take action against 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 spectra, 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 a larger meet is that people who are very, very well informed, started thinking, you know, this is, can be a real problem. how does that ranch her outfit were sitting in florida made? and took action, as i said on their, their, their single lifeline to their economy. oil devastating. and they're like, you can see them kind of go, we do that but whoa. so it's, and 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 burton was question today about human rights. he said,

the reason why he's cracking down on opposition leaders is because he doesn't want something like january 6 to happen in rush. and he also says it doesn't want to see groups formed like black lives matter. what's your response to that? please? my response is kind of what i communicated. i think that say that's ridiculous. comparison is one thing for literally criminals to break through cordon. go into the capital, kill a police officer and be held accountable. and that is for people object eating, 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 there are very different criteria. steve, steve, holland griggs present. sorry, president putin said he was satisfied with the answer he about your comment about him being a killer. could you give us your side on this? what did you tell him?

he satisfied i would i bring it up again. you talk to him, do you believe you can trust him? look, this is not about trust. this is about self interest and verification, self interest. that's what it's about. so i virtually almost almost anyone that i would work out an agreement with and affected the american people's interest. i don't say, well, i trust you, no problem. let's see what happens. you know, is that all expression goes the proof of the put it in the evening. we're going to know shortly. igor, radio, free europe, radio, liberty, mr. present. hello miss. you want to go on a shade you can? can you see? yeah, yeah. yeah. so i think, you know, i, that's in civil society and they're free, so free press, continue inside russia. yes. for example, radio free europe. yes. radio lever, a c,

voice of america. karen, time to the channel where i work brand of 14 agents and several other independent media. so we have essentially being forced out in russia 30 years after president. he edson invited us in my question is, after your talk with president putin, how interested do you think she's improving as a media climate in russia? i wouldn't put it that way. there's or improving the climate. i would in fact put in terms of how much interest does he have in burnish in rushes reputation. that is not as dude as not being contrary to democratic principles in free speech. that's a judgment i cannot make. i don't know,

but it's not because i think he is interested in changing the nature of close to 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 man 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 when 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 it that i think he decided that the way for russia to be able to sustain itself as a 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 is one of the great powers in the world. i told you 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. the military? no, we didn't talk about military you know,

for me log and also with what you said at nato, that the biggest problems right now are russia and china. he's spoken many times about how you've spent, perhaps more time with president she than any other world leader. so is there going to become a time where you might call him all the old friends and asked him to open up china to the world health organization. investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of cobra, 1900 this case in the state. we know each other. well, we're not all french. it's just pure business. so i guess my question would be, you've said that you're going to press china, you signed onto the g 7 communique that said you the g 7 were calling on china to open up to the investigators in china 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 it develops china is trying very hard to project itself as

a responsible and very, very forthcoming nation. that 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. they see the results. 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, 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 more there to the press conference held by the who as president joe

biden. not quite as long as president putin's book. i'm here in studio with richard walker or chief political editor, richard. does president biden's account reflect what we heard earlier from president? i would say yeah, biology does. in fact jo, by a couple of times during the press conference referred to the fact that he had been watching the press conference with let me put in earlier. and he didn't really offer up any contradictions and tools. so i thought that was quite interesting and also of course, in the choreography of the sequencing of these conferences that you know, coming kind of having the last word did give biden the opportunity to contradict. and i think the pizza had said, well, if you thought it was, it was a message, but i would say that the message was very much the same,

which was sort of so far. so good. we've managed to have some practical, pragmatic conversations about areas of mutual concern. they didn't see eye to eye on everything. and there are some quite concrete steps going forward. and biden, holding up really, i think most prominent lead this area strategic stability that we were talking about just a layer of trying to avoid unintended conflicts of avoiding the very high tension between the 2 countries from spinning out of control. holding that up really as the most kind of concrete, the result, but also listing a few others on cyber being a bit more specific. saying that, you know, he'd given the list to vladimir putin of 16 kind of classes of public infrastructure, which she would see is off limits. so he gave a couple of examples. things like, of water in energy. you know, don't touch these and talking about the kind of work that has to go forward now.

now you know that these conversations about strategic stability, they will now be, there will be a working group put together into that. there will be a structure dialogue. likewise on cyber that will be a structured dialogue and saying, you know, check back in 3 to 6 months time. that's where we'll know whether this is really come to anything. you know, the fact that there was, you know, pretty positive mood music. now to after these 2 pre conferences does not necessarily mean that these problems have been result. you mentioned there 3 to 6 months. he mentioned that one point he said it's about cross then later on he said it's not about trust. it's about, you know, i think i have a phrase with one of the proof is in the pudding. and so essentially we're, the discussions have taken place now. several issues which we're going to go into now into greater detail have been discussed. what does that mean by 3 to 6 months? are we going to be having another meeting perhaps?

well, i think i think the process will be to see what happens within these dialogues. you know, so it looks that begin on strategic stability. do they start to come up with proposals that can then be put into practice? so i think that will be a person of the really kind of can be monitored in terms of trust. yeah. that there was an element contradiction to what he's saying because on the one have you think this is pure business? he said that, you know, we don't friends in pure business and but on the other hand, he was also stressing how important it was that they had met personally, that they had spent this time together that nothing kind of, you know, nothing beats this one to one diplomacy and that may not be about trust, but it is about something human is it is about kind of establish the like being sure that the communication has what being sure that you've understood the other person as far as you possibly can. so it may not be trust, but it's, you know, it's moving in that direction or at least kind of having the sense that you build

a working relationship where you have people, you know, leaving up to these tools has been a lot of people refer back to this classic expression, the mantra of ronald reagan like trust, verify, you know, so it's not to kind of totally distrust but then to make sure that you can always verify that whatever the other side just done. what you said. thing if that was from a different era that was from this era of arms control, where you talking about the kind of power between the 2 nations was really about how many nuclear warheads of which type you have. these are things that you can count. verification usually meant go and inspect and count how many of the things you have in this new era. where are we talking about cyber and a i in the military in which you will get implicitly referred to as areas for these 2 gigi to talk. you can't count algorithms. you can't count like a, it's not, it's not verifiable in the same way. and they,

this is going to be the nitty gritty difficulty about talking about the new types of weapons. you know, trying to establish kind of, you know, how do, how do you define um, control around algorithms around things. the completely intangible. you cannot count them. so you have come up with other ways you have to have the they talk about rules of the road, guard rails stuff like that. but that is all very metaphorical. it's not really something really tangible ends up. and that's the problem with all of the theory. there's hyper text you can deny, you know, it's often hard to tell exactly who planted the cyber type, what malware was for us of it. so that's going to be the kind of the nitty gritty that they have to get into the next few richer vision. describe this as a win win, or is that too much? okay. yeah, i mean they, i think this request and went to putin did this about who won this and he said it's not a competition. but i think they both come away from this reasonably happy. obviously

russia is a closed society, it's not an open media biking will face criticism in the u. s. definitely from hawks, the saying looks like you're going soft on it and that will happen to bite and no doubt. but i think broadly they both come out. they've had held their head side, they say that they've had a private conversation. they don't agree on everything. there are very big disagreements on many things. they've identified areas where they need to cooperate, it will make the world safer if they do. and let's see if it works out. so i think, i think the political risk divide is not that great. and the wildest change a little bit in the debate about russia in the reason is because it used to be the republicans who were hawks on russia until trump came here. and donald trump had this very curious relationship with russia, where he sort of held up putin as a role model. nice. so that is blunted. the republicans ability to criticize the democrats on any kind of diplomacy towards russia. all right, richard william there for the moment. richard walker, chief international editor,

and we're going to move on to w correspondent, oliver solid. now, who's standing by 1st in washington. i. hi oliver again, joe biden drew a clear line in the sand lying consequences for russia. if american interests were threatened, how is this being received in the united states? well, by don't really portrayed himself as a defender of democracy here. so he used this, this very high stakes meeting here. really making clear that his agenda is not against russia, but that he, that the united states has to stand up for its values. and there has been some tough talk made as well on human rights, which a button called the d n. a of the united states, they talked about the situation in the ukraine by an express concern about bella roosevelt, the prosecution of opposition lead lexi nevada. and then also talking about those

famous red lines that button wanted to draw that us would not tolerate the interference in its democracy. obviously, tackling rush and ransomware attacks and recent elections and that really in the backdrop, off the backing off it's of the united states was transatlantic partners bite and attended the some, it's a g 7 and of nato. so that obviously very important shift in foreign policy that we're seeing here. and that's exactly what biden means when he says america's back of this, really, this meeting today was also about choosing the situation with russia to some extent, finding some common ground and then focus on other issues on the, on the diplomatic agenda. right, well let's look at one of those other issues now. president biden said that it would be devastating for russia for lexia, nevada need. the russian opposition figure dies while in prison. what does the u. s

. president mean by that though? well, he certainly wants to make clear that the us is not happy with the situation that for that that the opposition leaders person is persecuted, that he was poisoned in the 1st place. and what us intelligence believes that the russian f s p standing behind that. so from the highest ranks, if you will, and certainly res pressure on putin. so not let the situation with not only deteriorate. that is one part of course of the story. the other part is finding common ground moving forward in the other areas of conflict. and one of those is reducing the nuclear arms arsenal, which we heard. there might be some movement in this topic as well. all right, we'll leave it there for the moment. dw correspondent oliver sided in washington. thank you for your analysis. right, well, let's bring in d,

w correspondent, l, emily. sure, when, who's been tracking the story for us from moscow? hi, emily. and what was your main take away from president biden's assessment of that today's talks? well, i think it 1st of all was interesting, like richard was saying that biden's statements pretty much mirrored putin's rather positive assessment of the talks. i also think it did seem like biden, and this administration have a fairly good understanding, you know, of basic tenants of what russia needs. but what russia once in, afford relation relationship with, with another country. you know, this, this idea of laying out these basic rules of the road. i think that would have very much appealed to put and his administration very clear. you know, this list of strategic institutions that you can't head. and you know, this,

you also seem to have kind of an understanding of russia almost. he mentioned the fact that he had read almost everything put in wrote, which i'm sure would have stroked food and you go. and that is also important. you know, the fact that boot and bite and rather i'm conflating the 2 names making a new name, biden rather said, you know, that russia wants to be seen as a great power, an important power on the world stage. and that is very important. i think for bloody mir putin and it seemed that by didn't, you know, was giving him straight talk and not talking down to him not threatening him and not kind of admonishing him like a pupil. that's one thing that, you know, a politician here recently said they don't like, and they don't want, especially from the u. s. so i think the strategy here seems to be positive and will be, i think, assess positively from the russian side. emily, president putin said that the 2 countries have agreed to resume arms control talks,

unreturned, ambassadors to their posts. now, how significant is that? well, i think it's, you know, it's very significant. these are the bare bones of the relations between the 2 countries. arms control treaties, you know, going back to the cold war when there was the standoff between the u. s. and the soviet union, those are really very important. and the trump administration, you know, they left various treaties. and one of the 1st things that the biden administration did was to extend the new start treaty put in in his comments mentioned several times that he really appreciated the fact that that was the 1st thing that bite and did that. he said that the u. s. would want to extend that treaty and that they will be carrying on talks on that. i think that's a very important factor. and when it comes to diplomatic relations, you know that of course is important for keeping dialogue open. then we've seen in

recent months the expulsion of diplomats from both countries the ambassadors leaving. so of course, you know, that's, that's almost even more bare bones and arms control. because if you want to talk, you have to have people, people talking on the ground. all right, we'll leave it there for now. emily, sherwin diesel view correspondent in moscow. thanks for that. and from moscow to geneva, where dw correspondent terry shows is standing by 1st hi terry. now joe biden said that the u. s. agenda is not against russia, but he wanted to work towards stability and predictability. what steps did he outlined to work towards those? and well as, as my colleagues have mentioned, there were some areas that truly are not that divisive, including arms control. surprisingly, that was something that the us and russia have always been able to negotiate about

arms control, even when the bilateral relationship in other areas is at rock bottom, which it may be narrow very nearly there. now. so this is one of the things that both sides agreed was, was a point of stability between them. present biden's press conference was, was much more strident actually than, than president putin's. he talked about the things that he had demanded of russia. the things that he had warned russia about, including the death possible death of election, of only the health of alexia volney, and about cyber attacks. and that's a really interesting one because as others have mentioned, it's very hard to apportion blame with any definitive nurse. even though the u. s. experts have traced them back to entities that are certainly backed by the kremlin . and i think that this is something though, that when the 2 sides have, they're going to keep talking about this. this is really, this is really important because if you could get to the kremlin to stop,

to stop supporting groups like this, it would make a huge difference in the security of the united states not to mention in europe as well. so this is something where if it, if it really goes ahead that, that's a real breakthrough by terry. no job. i had mentioned new weapon systems that could raise the threat of accidental war. what are they, what are the 2 nations, or how would the 2 nations communicating on this issue? the vere, the russian side has already violated arms control treaties that already existed. they have gone ahead, secretly creating nuclear warheads, the, to go beyond the scope of agreements that they made with the united states. and so that was what doomed the i n f treaty already. and we don't really know what they have at the moment. there is a lot of suspicion that kalynne and greg, which is an enclave of russia inside, inside in between lives on the border with lithuania, that there are

a lot of weapons stored there that we very much like to know what they are and we don't so i don't think we can say exactly what is the 2 sides would be negotiate in negotiating about in the future. one thing that we can, can definitely say though, is that as long as the you and us in russia are negotiating, the world is a safer place. and of course, both sides would like to bring china into this equation. and as long as, as the 2 major arms could arms holders in the world are discussing this, there's a lot more chance of that. terry's only you were in, in helsinki for the us russia so much during the trump administration. now that we've seen president prudent and president biden, how is the tone of this meeting different it couldn't be more different actually at, at that joint press conference. it was almost, it was almost laughable. remember that president trump did some really outrageous

things like say that he had asked president putin, whether he was responsible for meddling and us elections. and president putin said no, i wasn't. and so president trump said, why wouldn't i trust him over the intelligence agencies of the united states? i mean, that's just unfathomable here. president biden said that he told president, this is not going to stand and that is how they may be now moving forward into a discussion about becoming more transparent about cyber activities. so that meeting, you know, people just constantly, literally were like this, watching that screen. i can tell you that here i think that both men portrayed the meeting as professional. i think that president putin actually respected a president biden's grasp of foreign policy. these are discussions that could not have been had in any substance with president trump. so i think that that really both sides came out speaking positively,

both about the other side and about the progress that had been made today. all right, we'll leave it there. d w 's. terry show in geneva. thank you for that. and let's take it back here to the studio where our chief international editor richard walker is here. richard, now we've heard from our correspondence in different locations and it was interesting on terry how to say there, you know that this, this feeling of positivity almost. yeah, i mean, i mean obviously a great story from terry about this or the drop jewel. it's, you know, at that at that famous press conference between biden and trump completion. i think it's quite interesting to draw a contrast to obama. now, of course, joe biden was, bronco bama, vice president. he witnessed the relationship that at that time. and remember, famously, brock, obama, they, they, they came in that administration seeking what they called a reset. you know,

they wanted to kind of get, you know, the relations were really bad with russia. again, let's have a read that. let's try and get things, you know, get things to improve again. and it internally, backside really didn't work and things went from bad to worse than under obama. you had things like the annexation of crimea taking place, which really still like a profoundly undermined the relationship. now and brock obama, there was, there was one moment cheering obama, the time where he referred to russia as a regional power. that was kind of managing its own decline. and this with, i think he, in response to trying to defend his, his approach to russian. so trying to diminish russia as a rival, and this in retrospect, is being seen as a diplomatic mistake. you know, not showing vladimir putin respects this almost encouraged him to sort of prove his,

his mettle and wait on the world stage. sometimes to damaging effects. and it was interesting to see the sort of respect the joe biden managed to sleep in that the things that he said about putin. in his press conference early on, he kind of echoed what vladimir putin had said about the strategic stability talks . you know, the importance of avoiding nuclear war that these 2 countries had a unique responsibility. vladimir putin said that. and so did joe biden saying that they had this unique responsibility as proud and powerful nation. so, you know, flattering, not just bruton, both flattering russia that you know, that i'm here, i'm meeting you kind of on the level talking about the big political things. i think that is taking the lesson in finding his own way in between. it's not halfway between trump and obama, but learning lessons from what went wrong from in the obama era, as well as what went wrong on for trump. richard, what's your take away from today?

i think yeah, so far so good. i think can be the, the kind of the summary. let's see what comes out of these dialogues at the beginning. and let's see if you know the cyber attack begin to ease off and see what happens in ukraine. you know, i mean, there really wasn't any progress on ukraine, so things deteriorates around your train if the conflict that your rates, than you know, the seeming, the kind of seeming progress that we've seen here could evaporate. maybe flag me pushing goes out of this meeting. now with an incentive to make progress on the plane, so we'll see. all right, we're going to leave it there. dw chief international editor richard walker. thank you for all your analysis. under reminder of our top story, this era, the president of the united states and russia have given a p t assessment of their face to face talk in geneva, lot of my food and told report has afterwards there was no hospitality the right,

well you think watching teachers news from berlin. more coming up the top of the other for him. yes. remember you can keep up to date on a website, www. dot com. take care. ah, excuse me. you feel worried about the on the, on the, on the green and clear remains to change. join me for the size of the green transformations for me to use hold of me.