place of constant deployment. what does that mean? that means the ukrainian forces should go to donbas. that is what they proposed. second thing, closing the border between russia and ukraine in this area. and third, elections should be held in three months and three months after these two steps are taken. you don't need to be an attorney, you don't need any special education that has nothing to do with the minsk agreements. this runs fully counter to the minsk agreements. that is why, the additional commitments could russia shoulder in this context. everything is understandable. turning now to the exercises. we're conducting exercises on our own territory, just like a the united states carries out a lot of exercises on their territory but we didn't carry any exercises bringing our equipment, personnel to the

united states. regrettably, the united states government is doing that right now. that is why the concerns should be not with russia but with the united states. but we talked about that during our talks to clarify the positions. turning now to the opposition and the citizens that you mentioned, number one, this person knew that he was breach the laws effective in russia. he should have noted that as a person who was convicted two times. i would like to underscore that he deliberately ignored laws. this person went abroad for treatment. and he didn't register with the authorities. and he went to, came out of the hospital. then he recorded a video.

put it on the internet. that requirement, that requirement arrived. he didn't appear. he ignored the law. he was then, he knew that he was then being investigated and he came back deliberately. he did what he wanted to do. that is why, what can you say? as for people like the -- opposition, regretly form of the press conference does not allow to get into this in depth but here is what i have to say. i think i'm not going to say anything complicated. it is going to be clearly understandable. you can't be subjectively to your viewers and your audience, i will be very grateful to you. the united states has announced that russia is its enemy, its adversary.

the congress, 2017, u.s. legislation has -- that legislation said that the u.s. needs to support the rules and order of democratic administration in our country and needs to support political organizations. that is enshrined in american law, american law, u.s. law. now let's ask a question, if russia is an enemy then what organizations will support america in russia? i don't think the ones that are strengthening the russian federation will do that. i think it is going to be those who are restraining and that is the objective of the united states, publicly stated objective. organizing people who are promoting the implementation of russian policy, of american policy toured russia, rather. and how should we feel about that? i think it's clear that we

should be cautious about it but we are going to act exclusively within the confines of russian law. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: continue with our team. we have heard that american side is constantly had some rhetoric about political prisoners in russia, the issue of novolny, was that discussed and how was it discussed? and also we've all seen a new stage in russia-american relations with president biden and all of this started off with a very crude remark by biden about you. what do you think? president biden spoke about

human rights. he talked about dealing with that in the russian federation. the point is his initiative. that is number one. as for the, the improper statements we all know about the statements of after that president biden called me and we cleared things up and his explanation was good enough for me. he proposed we meet in geneva. that we met. the talks were very constructive. i was convinced president biden is an experienced person and it is clear that we spoke face-to-face for almost two hours. doesn't happen with all leaders you have such a detailed conversation face-to-face. as for various accusations, you know his, his predecessor was asked the same question.

he, he didn't answer and this president was asked the same question his answer was different than the answer given by president trump. you know what? in principle everything that is happening in our countries in one way or another is something that the political leadership takes responsibility for and the people that are, number one, people in charge. as far as who is in charge is a murderer, in american cities every day people are killed. includes leaders of various organizations. you can't say a word about, you don't have a time to say a word and somebody is killed. you know, i remember, i remember that somebody ran away, was shot in the back for example, fine. those are criminal matters. but what about, what about afghanistan? over 100 people were killed at one time.

let's say it was a mistake. that happens too. from drones or helicopters. clearly, clearly civilians were killed in iraq. what is that? and who takes responsibility for that? who is the killer? or for human rights? listen, guantanamo is still operating right now. it is not in accordance with anything, not international law, not american law, not anything but it still exists. prisons, prisons that were opened in various countries in european countries where torture was applied. was that human rights? i don't think so. there is hardly anybody sitting in this hall today wouldn't agree that is protecting human rights. that is already a practice. that is real policy and based on

these practices we understand that this is done and has continued to be done. it has been done by people getting money from abroad, some people are getting money from abroad for the interests of people paying them. let's continue, please. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: one question about the arctic. you said you talked about that for a long time. the u.s. accused russia of militarizing the arctic. we heard from secretary of state blinken about that in may, about concerns that russian military. what did you talk about? >> translator: we actively discussed that in depth, in pretty big detail that is a very important and interesting question. as for the arctic all that itself and the northern passage

specifically is extremely interesting for a number of countries, economically speaking. as for the concerns of the the militarization, about americans about the i will militarization of the arctic. that that is we're not doing anything different that that was happening under soviet union. we are building infrastructure that was destroyed. that is ad the modern level and we're doing conservation infrastructure. we're creating bases for our disaster relief services in order to save people in the sea if it comes to that god forbid, also to protect the environment. what i told our colleagues i don't see any concerns. quite the contrary, i'm firmly convinced we can cooperate, we should cooperate in this area. russia, united states are one of the eight members of the arctic

council. russia is chairing that, the arctic council this year. moreover between alaska and chiosk is a strait, a well-known strait and one is russia and other end is the united states. all of this should spur us to join our efforts. the situation regarding the use of the northern passage is governed by international law by two basic laws, the convention on the law of the sea of 1982 i believe it is and the polar code of conduct which consists of a number of documents ratified in 2017. i pointed out something to our partners, namely we, russia, we intend to fully adhere to these international legal standards. we're not violating anything.

we're prepared to assist all stakeholders and all companies in exploring the northern passage. that, due to climate change this situation is changing. and we also, we also have new ice breaking ships. they are the most powerful in the world in russia. that is why we definitely need to work in this area. the commission of the law of the sea i recall was drawn up because it describes the legal regime, specifically in, in, internal seas and territorial seas and seas that belong to a country, exclusive economic areas. and the free, open seas.

internal seas, those are the seas are within the territory of the country. then you have territorial waters, 12 sea miles. and then you have other categories. and territory seas, the military, the military ships can, can go. as far as the internal seas, there is a particular regime and we're not imposing anything on anybody there. in internal seas just so you know i believe there are five, united states, gulf, et cetera, there are five total, five gulfs or bays maybe they're called. there are almost 1000 nautical miles. this is our sovereign rights to

let ships go through there or not but we're not abusing this rule. we're providing to anyone, we're providing it to anybody who wants. there are around one how applications last year i think. and, some of the ships are under russian flags. and our regulatory, our regulatory authorities mounted their compliance with the polar code of conduct which has requirements for, for ships. if all of us together, all stakeholder countries, including the member of the northern, the arctic council, if all are interested in tackling these issues there are some areas where we need to continue to work. i'm convinced that we can find an answer.

i don't see any problems we cannot tackle. all right. ntv, please. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: good afternoon, mr. putin. good relations, at least not poor relations between russia and america were always the guarantor of calm international relations and you talked to biden. biden agreed. now you're talking about this respect. you said that your talks were characterized by that. before the talks you talked about red lines. americans have some red lines. during the talks were you able to reach an agreement about not crossing the red lines in all areas? is that something that would improve the relations or at least stablize the relations. >> translator: i can say that on the whole we understand what our american partners are saying.

we understood what we were saying. we were talking about red lines but i have to be frank. being, of course we didn't get to the point we're talking in depth where the line would be drawn. we talked about work, work on cybersecurity. we talked about strategic stability. i think that during this consultations incidentally also all of, all of this should be discussed and i hope we can agree on it. i'm including the arctic matters on that too. abc news, our american branch. reporter: mr. president, thank you so much for taking my questions. president biden said he would respond if cyberattacks from russia would not stop. i'm curious, what did he tell

you? did he make any threats? a quick follow up, sir, a list of your political opponents who are dead or imprisoned or jailed are gone. alexi novolny organization called for end to corruption. russia outlawed that organization, as extremist. you opposed him or anyone with it to run for office. my question, mr. president, what are you afraid of? >> translator: once more let me reiterate what was already said about various so-called foreign agents. and about people who are positioning themselves as being non-systemic operation. i already answered your colleague from cnn. but this is the, the law of the genre, so i have to answer your question, please, i will do it

again. the united states has adopted a law in accordance which the u.s. has said they will support various political organizations in russia. at the same time they made it, they made announcement that the russian federation is an enemy. they have spoken publicly saying that they will restrain the development of russia. here is a question. what organizations, what political organizations of the united states and other members ever the western community, which organizations should be supported in russia especially, if they are paying for them? we're just like the americans the way the americans did back in the 1930s. we're calling them foreign agents. they're not prohibited from working. they can continue to operate. foreign agents don't need to stop operating. if they are extremist in nature, that is another issue. the organization that you mentioned has been, has publicly

called for mass disorder. they have publicly called for breaking the, the law. they have called for minors to participate in activities that are against the law and they were talking about using molotov cocktails against the authorities as well, including the police. america just recently had very severe events, well-known events after killing of an african-american. and an entire movement developed known as black lives matter. i'm not going to comment on that but here is what i do want to say, what we saw was disorder, destruction, violations of the law, et cetera. we feel sympathy for the united states of america but we don't want that to happen on our territory. we're doing our utmost in order to not allow it to happen.

and, some fears, nothing to do with anything, please. could you give me the microphone please. reporter: you didn't answer my question, sir, if all your political opponents other dead, in prison, poisoned, doesn't that send a message you do not want a fair political fight? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: as for who is killing whom and throwing whom in jail, people came to the u.s. congress with political demands. 400 people, over 400 people had criminal charges placed on them. they face prison sentences of up to 20, maybe even 25 years. they're being called domestic terrorists. they are being accused of a number of other crimes. some of them were arrested right away after the events and 30 of

them are still under arrest. it is unclear on what grounds. and as for the nobody from the official authorities has informed us about it. some people, some people died and one of the people that died was simply shot on the spot by the police although they were not threatening the police with any weapons. in many countries the same thing happens that happens in our country. i would like to stress once more that we sympathize with what happened in the united states but we have no desire to have the same thing happen in our country. just a couple more questions. because later the president will continue his program. please hand over the microphone. >> translator: i'm from. were you able to reach an agreement on returning some of

the russians that ended up in american prisons? if yes, when will it happen? >> translator: we talked about it. president biden raised that question. the question about american citizens that were in russian prisons, russian prisons, we discussed that. there could be some compromise we eninto between the russian foreign ministry and the u.s. state department. they will be working on it. >> translator: from the russia channel. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: you said you discussed trade with mr. biden. that is probably the most positive agenda. business from both ends are interested in development. what are the prospects that you see here? thank you. >> translator: this doesn't depend on us. this depends on the americans. we have not leveled the

restrictions. what i think after some restrictions were introduced in the economy and in commerce, i think that was done much more by the u.s. then by russia. yes, this did affect some of our developments. some of our developments. the u.s. is carrying out their tasks of restraining russia, but they didn't have any critical effect. that is number one. number two, this has to do with the interests of american businesses. 200 people, the biggest delegations of americans, it was american delegation, that delegation was at the st. petersburg economic forum. some restrictions were introduced including for american companies. due to that some of the american companies have lost out. they have given up the business into the hands of their competitors from other countries. we talked about that. what for? there is no practical reason that there are lawsuits.

as for our trade with the u.s., i think it is $28 billion roughly, in the first, it increased by 16% in the first quarter of this. if this trend continues i think it will be benefit of everybody. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: you know. let's have a couple questions from here. a couple questions from here. the lady here, please. andre. let the lady answer a question. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. president, thank you very much for affording me the opportunity to ask you a question. a few years ago you met president biden. that was when he was vice president. what he said was that he looked to you in the eye and he said that he didn't see a soul. and you said, that means we

understand one another. did you, tell me please, did you look him in the eye and what did you see there? did you see a person with whom you can work? please tell me, president biden, did he invite you to visit the russian white house, the white house, rather, if yes, did you agree to go to the white house? >> translator: president biden did not invite me as his guest. i didn't invite him either. i think for visits like that, for meetings like that, you have to have the proper conditions. you need to be ready. as for the soul, seeing it or not seeing something, well, this isn't the first time i've heard this. frankly speaking i don't recall this conversation but i will allow that it happened. it escaped my attention. but if you ask me, if you ask me what sort of a partner, what sort of a conversational partner

is, i would say he is very constructive. he is very balanced, just the way i expected. he is very experienced. you can tell that at first glance. but he, he talked about his family, recalling them. he talked about what his mom said, you know. these are important things that are not directly related to any, any matter directly but it shows the extent of his moral values. and that is all quite attractive. now what i think is on the whole, we spoke the same language. that doesn't mean we necessarily have to look into our eyes, look into our souls. we need to have eternal friendship and love but no, we have to represent our countries

and the relationship is a pragmatic one primarily. yes, please. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: andre from cavasant, the newspaper. mr. putin, based on the outcome of this meeting, did you have any new, are there any new illusions? >> translator: i didn't have any old illusions, what about new ones? no, illusions there are no illusions and there could not be any illusions. okay, over here. raising your hand, yeah, please. give her the microphone. the young lady can defend herself who to give the microphone too. >> translator: hello. i'm from the channel nine, mr. putin. the question about global crime mat change, did you speak with president biden about that? and the second question has to do with american media.

recently you gave a big interview to nbc. do you think that it is fair to give the american president, did you think it is fair to give a media, interview to the american media when it doesn't happen the other way around? and how do you feel about having your words always being distorted? >> translator: you know what? about the distortion, about sound of things, well, that is the practice in international relations today. what can you do? can't do anything about it. we've gotten used to that a long time ago and we're all living with it. we've been living with it for decades. as for who is giving an interview, that decision is taken by the relevant leaders or countries.

and if you want to convey something in addition to people, then, well we tree to do that. i gave an interview to the american press. that is exactly what i was trying to do there. as for the, the activities of our mass media in general, for example, president biden raised the question about, about freedom. about the freedom, freedom of europe and russia. i think for, rather, radio free europe which we called a foreign agent. biden broached that before that. before that there were other media outlets. there is also sputnik, a media outlook working abroad. before that the united states called sputnik a foreign agent. and what we did, we did in response, with regard to the

voice of america and this is done in accordance with the law. registration, et cetera. and a lot of problems have been created for our personnel for money transfers, that sort of thing. we don't have that kind of a problem and, for american media, the american media hasn't complied with all of the requirements of russian law. i think that even here we can work through the ministries of foreign affairs to resolve matters. let's go over here, sure. okay. i was referring to the lady there. but sure, yeah, you can go next. thank you very much. >> translator: from euro news. gillian galanska from euro news. you shaked biden's hand at the very beginning.

here is my question, were you able to bring understanding and trust to a different level with the president of the united states? do you think it is realistic at this juncture to have a new set of relations when there are absolutely clear and transparent? will there be an understanding where both countries need to go to? >> translator: let me tell you in life there is no happiness. there is only the specter of happiness. i think in this situation there is not family based trust but i think that there was some specter of trust that we caught a glimpse of. please. please. microphone. you already have a microphone. you want a second one, huh? this wasn't turned on. >> translator: thank you, the coronavirus is one of the most important issues on the planet. now was this issue discussed with the american president? did he ask sort of prospects with the joint work with the

americans in order to curb this plague? perhaps you talked about mutual recognition of vaccines? >> translator: we did talk about that but we only touched on it tangentially. we answered a request by the americans to send our equipment as humanitarian assistance. america is a big, powerful country. it is not like they don't have money. just at that point they really needed they really needed our equipment. we did it free of charge. we're prepared to continue cooperation on these lines in the future but we didn't talk about it in general. we didn't talk about it in detail rather, today. with regard to president trump after these, after those meetings the relations between the two countries deteriorated further. is there any indication that that won't happen again? did we reach in our relationship with the u.s. some sort of a low point that we can push off from and go up?

>> translator: that is difficult to say now. that is because all of the activities that have to do with worsening the relations, all of the actions that did that were not initiated by us. i don't know. please. >> translator: from "pravda." i'm not sure if you know, we, our team won. >> translator: congratulations. >> translator: so what do you think is the score in the putin-biden meeting? and the second question. the americans about coming to geneva, they kept on saying we're going to put pressure on putin. we're going to put pressure on russia. did you feel that pressure?

was there any conflict? that is probably the most important question that russia is interested in. that is what i think. >> translator: another thing, you know, i think that is pretty much, pretty much enough. i think so too. we didn't experience any pressure. although there was a candid and open conversation and there were no personal or diplomatic deviations from the topics we set out to address. let me repeat once more, there was no pressure from either side. it would be senseless to do that too. that is not the reason people meet each other. what was the first part of your question? oh, the score. i think before i'm meeting with president biden said it wasn't a sporting event. and i fully agree with that. what is the point of keeping score.

the meeting had results. it was substantive. it was concrete. and it took place in an atmosphere that was geared toward achieving results. first and foremost the specter of trust that our colleagues from the news talked about. bbc news. go ahead. reporter: thank you. rosenberg, bbc news. joe biden -- [inaudible]. >> translator: joe biden is calling for stable, predictable relations with russia but on the west it is believed that the unpredictability is a feature of russian foreign policy. are you prepared to renounce unpredictability for the sake of improving relations with the west? thank you. >> translator: i envy you for

the level of artistry you achieved here. so turning to the, as for the first question, do you think and do you think and for the second question, the first question, the west considers and secondly are you prepared to renounce it. just because the west believes that to be the case doesn't mean it is the case. let's turn to the first part of the question. you said the west believes russian foreign policy is unpredictable. let me answer that. in to, when the, when russia, when the u.s. exited the abm treaty for no reason, why did they do that? that had an effect of stability and now withdrawal of imf in 2012, what is stable about that? nothing about that at all. withdraw from the open skies treaty. what is stable about that? there is nothing left but luckily joe biden has, is addressing the area of strategic

stability. he has made quite a sound decision to extend the s.t.a.r.t. treaty while, let's take the situation surrounding ukraine and crimea. everybody is dancing around that, right? what is stable about the fact that a state coup, coup d'etat was organized in ukraine with president yanukovych agreed with all the demands of the opposition, he was prepared in essence to leave power and hold new elections. no, no. there was a need to carry out a bloody coup d'etat which led to results that are well-known. and well-known in east ukraine. you think we're unpredictable. no, i don't think so. in my view, we are acting absolutely appropriately to counter threats emerging against us. i think for the situation to be

truly stable we need to reach an agreement on proper code, proper rules of conduct in all the areas we talked about. security, cybersecurity, tackling issues that have to do with regional conflict. i think we can reach an agreement on everything. at least today the impression arose that that impression based on the outcome of our meeting, my meeting with mr. biden. [speaking in native tongue] going to start singing songs now? blue fog. foreign colleagues will not understand that reference. let's give the floor to one of the foreign outlets, bloomberg, please. >> translator: i have a follow up question. >> translator: "bloomberg news". >> translator: mr. putin in 2016 you met with mr. trump.

after that american sanctions were adopted, latest round were adopted very quickly. did you talk with joe biden on the guaranties you would have for the sanctions to be lifted or rather for new sanctions not to be introduced against russia? and you said that there is some insipient hope? >> translator: with regard to biden you mentioned some initial agreements. do you have more trust he will be able to do it? because it is believed that the american administration has more solidarity with the american president than was the case during donald trump's term. you talked about cybersecurity. you had consultations on ukraine. i wasn't sure, was there a working group on cybersecurity? you talked about some red lines. did you lay out the red lines specifically about that? can you tell us about that?

>> translator: let's turn to the red lines. i already addressed that many times. the understanding rises during negotiations on key areas of our interaction t makes no sense to try to scare one another. hp when people sit down for negotiations not to intimidate each other. as for sanctions on the economies, i already said, we don't know what the mood, domestic policy mood is like over there we know that the general situation. we can't say what is happening in detail so there is some, there is some who are against russian development. there are some who are proponents of it. it is difficult to say which side is prevailing. but after our meeting some steps are taken, the ones that you recall in 2016, then what will that mean? that will mean, that will mean

that we've lost the latest opportunity. please. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: one final question from a journalist from canada. reporter: you said to a couple of my colleagues you wanted unbiased, do you have a translation? >> no. reporter: hear me now? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: they didn't want to, there is no interpretation. can't hear it. reporter: i will try and repeat. >> translator: maybe try a different channel. yeah? no. i can't hear anything. i can't hear anything whatsoever one second.

sorry. would you mind repeating. reporter: canada in moscow. you wanted to my colleagues unbiased and fair questions. i have a fair question for you. this comes from my nine-year-old daughter who asked me before i left here. what is the big deal of this summit? it is quite a complicated answer for a nine-year-old. i would like you to explain to us, mr. president, why is this so complicated. she would like to know, and i would like to know, why are young people not allowed to protest in russia? >> translator: yes, that peace great. it is great that your nine-year-old daughter are interested in these questions. the answer is very simple. you need to look around yourself. you need to see how beautiful the world is.

and adults believe the two countries, the biggest nuclear powers are meeting. they're doing that in order to make the world safer, more reliable. and a place for everyone at home, for everyone to flourish, for all of those who live on our planet. and they're doing that, they're addressing issues that have to do with the terrible weapons which needs to be limited. they need to draw up common rules on refraining from using those weapons. they talked about protecting the environment. about river being clean. about seas being clean. about the not being any floods, not being any droughts. about providing food to everyone on the planet no matter where they are. they will talk about issues of health care so that when children grow up they get sick less often, they have the

opportunity to study. and they have the opportunity to look at the future confidentially and i hope that our, at our meeting, i hope that you will cover our meeting based on those considerations in particular. i thank you for your attention. all the best. david: okay, folks. that went on a lot longer, by the way it was 40 minutes ago when president vladmir putin said to everybody, i will take a couple more questions. that was 40 minutes ago. he went on to take at least a dozen more questions. clearly enjoying his repertoire with the press. he called his meeting with president biden are balanced, constructive, substantive. he called president biden himself experienced. he called his relationship with the united states a partnership with russia. while president biden called him a killer. has suggested his relationship,

our relationship with russia is adversarial. that is very different but we keep in mind this man is a former kgb agent. he is a master of disinformation. in fact you're taught disinformation while learning to be a kgb agent, no doubt he learned his lessons well. at one point he was asked about human rights abuses in russia, he used an old trope of the soviet union moral equivalency in the united states, suggesting that what we do against political opponents and so forth so no more than what is done in the united states. he mentioned references to police brutality, et cetera. again that is something we heard a lot of with the old soviet union i was an integral part of when he was a kgb agent. there you go, a very interesting discussion with president vladmir putin. our own connell mcshane is live in geneva. it is about 6:44 in the evening

there. again, connell it, was 45 minutes ago this man said just a couple more questions. he went on for another 40 minutes, clearly having a good time. reporter: yeah he did. i was looking at my watch, it was close to an hour, maybe short of it, 50 some minutes president vladmir putin addressing international media here. i picked up on moral equivalency as well. the quote, american cities every day people are killed talking about human rights there but putin started off the news conference essentially say he and biden don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues but he thought there was respect on both sides in the room today. he said at one point that the talks were constructive and then got into some of details from his point of view about some issues we've been following closely including cybersecurity. one of the things he said about cybersecurity he and biden agreed to at least start negotiations, consultations as he called them on issue of cybersecurity. he did say at one point that the most cyberattacks in the world

actually come from the united states, another one of those passing asides that president put works into these types of news conferences. he says the russians know about the cyberattacks that took place on the pipeline but russian authorities he put it had nothing to do with that. the other thing i think maybe is a headline about this, we thought it might happen, there was an agreement according to president putin, that ambassadors envoys to return to their countries. after i wrap with you, david, i i which i will do right now. the other thing the foreign policy folks discussed about the red lines, if you picked up on that. he and biden didn't get into details on so-called red lines when it comes to cyberspace or comes to issues like ukraine. we'll get biden's point of view on all of this in a few minutes. i will head over there to get my seat. david: connell, thanks very much. don't trip yourself to run over there. it is wild running from one

conference to another. let's bring in nsa director, retired general keith alexander who has been watching all of this with the rest of us. i want to focus, if you don't mind, general on the issue of cybersecurity. we have again, this is coming from vladmir putin. he is putting the best face as he can on all of this, using his past history as a kgb agent to throw kind of a little disinformation there. he said there was no hostility in the meeting. there was understanding with each other. in a interview a couple days ago he claimed his government, he in particular had no connection whatsoever with all of the hat attacks eminating from russia. you talk about election interference, solarwinds cyberattack and of course the colonial pipeline. do you believe that the russian government had nothing to do with those hacks? >> clearly the solarwinds they

were involved in. they led that. that was the sdr. i think that is clear. interesting you bring up disinformation. remember the same thing he did in crimea the little green men are not ours, are not ours, now we have crimea, they're spetsnaz. that is a way for him to try to obfuscate what is going on. i don't believe for a minute these hacker groups are existing in russia without some level of russian knowledge probably all the way to putin. that is my belief. david: you're not alone on that. intel folks current or retired, believe that. general jack keane who you know well was on fox news couple days ago. here is how he said we should respond to these cyber at that time, particularly because the intel community believes the russian government is involved. roll tape. >> cyber warfare using that instrument of national power to

undermine the american democracy. he is doing that every single day. we have to put that at his doorstep. we have got to tell him every time he does it we will counterattack using our cyberattack force against the infrastructure, cyber infrastructure from where that attack was launched. david: should we be counterattacking, general? >> this is some of the elements of national power the administration has. what do they take on, how do they do it? the administration needs to say, what do i want to do overtly and clandestinely. then giver those rules of engagement to the u.s. cyber command, the intelligence community to conduct those. when you set a red line you have to be prepared to go to that red line and take actions against it. in this case pushing back is absolutely. this is element of national power. they used it in estonia, they

used it in georgia, they used it in ukraine and they used it against us. we need to figure out before we before we need to get into it we need to step back to defend our country. it is out of hand. we have more to lose. fix the defense and push back. david: but the command, u.s. cyber command already said they have done counterattacks in 2018 and 2020 against their election interference. there were cyberattacks. again whether they were effective we don't know but it is interesting cyber command keeps this information secret. it went public with it not only to send a message to the american people but to the russians that we've been involved in counterattacks already. >> that we can do that. david: yeah, how. further should we go? i'm surprised, or did we actually involve ourselves in a counterattack with the colonial pipeline hack?

>> yeah, of that i don't know. i suspect that the government was involved in at least helping to get the monies back. you saw that with the fbi going after them. i think we have to be prepared to go after these ransomware attackers and make them pay a price. i think what the fbi has done what we're doing in that is a way to do it. it doesn't directly go against russia even though they're probably aiding and abetting these guys but go after them. maybe them pay a price. make this hard for them to do. today it is too easy. david: absolutely. go ahead. i'm sorry, finish your point. >> that is what we have to go stop. that is all i have to say. david: very quickly, we have a congressman waiting in the wings after you. i want to ask you about russia's sphere of influence. clearly vladmir putin wants to go back to something resembling the soviet sphere of influence, particularly about ukraine. he talked a little bit about

that. what should we do to force them to keep within their current sphere instead of going in further than they already have in the ukraine? >> i think that is the issue. the donbas region of even ukraine is the issue. the one russia is looking at we know president putin wants to go after. we have to stop that. david: all right. >> that is going to come after -- i think it is important for our country and for eastern europe to be on guard for that. >> absolutely. general keith alexander, pleasure to have you here. thanks for being here. appreciate it. >> thank you. david: republican tennessee congressman, house foreign affairs member, congressman mark green. thank you for being here. i trust you heard the presser from putin. what did you think? >> i was a little surprised at the degree of conflating he did or, you guys used the term moral equivalence, basically comparing crime in the united states to what he is doing to his political opposition, comparing

our responses in the war on terror to you know some of their actions in the ukraine and crimea. there just isn't a comparison. it is apples to oranges. i also agree that you know, i was trained as a special operator in the army. training, survival, they teach you how to spot these kinds of questions, manipulation, subtle manipulation. you could hear that very clearly in the former kgb officer, now president vladmir putin. you know, it is just subtle manipulation and that is what they're doing with their cyber stuff inside of the united states. that is what he did in his presser. david: now we're about to hear from president biden but already president biden has a history of with president putin. he gave away a huge bargaining chip in terms of stopping the hold put on the gas pipeline between russia and germany that will affect all of europe. it was sort of giving away a

bargaining chip and getting nothing in return. what do you think that message sent to president putin about his relationship with biden? >> well not just that. you have the willingness to restart the new s.t.a.r.t., you know, nuclear discussion, nuclear disarmament discussions. i think you know, not giving, not getting something for what you're giving just shows weakness. and what, what i think people like putin are watching very closely, you know they're watching some of biden's gaffs. so you have that piece of it. boris johnson mocking the president in front of the g-7 over some memory lapses and things like that. you have his previous actions when he was in the obama administration of drawing red lines, not not enforcing them. with these two actions, essentially trading away bargaining chips shows incredible weakness that people like vladmir putin and xi xinping will take advantage

of this. it is not how which do our negotiations. you can talk, say he is a killer but you have to back your words with actions. i just think president biden has not done that. he has made a huge mistake there. david: we already heard some tough talk from president biden about president putin, calling him a killer, russia is an adversary not a partner. kind of reverse from trump, trump would talk nice about people but then deliver policy that was, put america first and put our adversaries on guard. >> sure. you look how president trump, you know, sort of changed his measures with kim jong-un and that resulted in an historic meeting and an agreement. then of course there were no missile tests during the rest of his presidency. that is the kind of stuff. >> yes. >> very reagannesque to say tear

down the wall, meet with gorbachev say, let's work something out. that is what i think president trump tried to do. i think what president biden is doing just the opposite. he is giving away you know warehouse of goods and hopeful that they will reciprocate. that doesn't work. david: congressman mark green, thanks so much for being here. really appreciate it. we're about to hear from president biden in geneva. it is almost 7:00 in the evening. it will stay light for a long time there. they're up pretty far north. the midnight sunshines bright in geneva. we'll be back with more from president biden coming next. ♪ ♪ ...

♪ in business, it's never just another day. it's the big sale, or the big presentation. the day where everything goes right. or the one where nothing does. with comcast business you get the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses and advanced cybersecurity to protect every device on it— all backed by a dedicated team, 24/7. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. comcast business powering possibilities. keeping your oysters business growing has you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/promo

♪ welcome to allstate, ♪ ♪are you down, d-d-down, d-d-down, d-d-down♪ where we're driving down the cost of insurance. ♪ ♪ are you down, down♪ ♪d-down, down? are you♪ drivers who switched saved over $700.

♪ allstate. here, better protection costs a whole lot less. you're in good hands. click or call for a lower rate today. david: well this is cavuto "coast to coast", i'm david asman, in for neil today, and as you can see on the left side of your screen, the podium is setup. obviously, the american flags there in in geneva where it is 7:00 p.m. right now, indicate that that's where president biden is going to be speaking. it was not a dual press conference after their meeting of several hours in geneva. we had one press conference from president putin that was just concluded, and now we go to president biden for a separate press conference, a lot of the media that was at the putin event are running over to try to be there for the biden event now and we have with us a

special guest to give us advice about what we've heard and what we're likely going to hear former national security advisor to former vice president mike pence lt. general keith kellogg. thank you for being here. the question of whether or not they came to any kind of agreement or will on cybersecurity is a huge issue for this meeting, but we gave away such a huge bargaining chip in terms of giving president putin permission to go ahead with that gas pipeline between his country and germany, which most of europe is against. we gave it to the russians without anything, in fact we gave it to them in the same week that we were being hacked by russians with the colonial pipeline, so it was almost rewarding bad behavior. where do we go from here? how do we force their hand on anything if we're willing to give away something for nothing? >> yeah, david, first thanks for having me.

look, i think the president missed a huge opportunity to go side by side with putin at a press conference. i mean, it shows, i believe, weakness when you don't sit side by side with a competitor like putin is. president trump stood side by side with him, without notes, talked in 2018 at helsinki and to let putin sit up there and talk for well over 40 minutes which was really a lot of propaganda, really amazed me and he covered a lot of areas. he covered the ukraine and covered the cyber area we just talked about and when you talk to putin and when i was with the president over the last four years, president trump, you know , he operated from strength. when we sanctioned the nord stream two pipeline and biden lifted the sanctions on that. that means 80% of the natural gas that is used by germany will come from russia. well that's a huge economic advantage for russia, and it cuts out the ukraine and we used to operate from other areas of strength.

for example, when they sent russian mercenaries in northern syria against our special operations troops the vogner group, we killed about almost up to 200 of the mercenaryies of the vogner group sent a clear message to putin, don't mess with us and when it comes to this let's move quickly to what you talked about the colonial pipeline and about ransomware. we know that that attack came out of russia. there are state sanctions and state-supported attacks. state sanction, that's sort of like north korea having a cyber attack on us. state sanction means they kind of turned a blind eye to it, and we accommodated that. we shouldn't do that. our response, and we should have told putin that and i don't know if we did but i don't believe we did, we should have told putin the next time we get an attack from russia, we will attack in kind. especially when it's on our critical infrastructure, like pipelines, or energy, or food suppliers like jbs recently was hit. we just cannot tolerate that and we have to go after him.

president trump rescinded all of the previous obama restrictions on what we want to do and we basically took the handcuffs off two years ago and biden should use those , use that ability to go after him. i think we just gave up too much to putin today, and especially from the press conference, and on what they talked about. david: well, as i was mentioning to our other general alexander, we did. the cyber command actually did engage in counter attacks in 2018 and 2020 that they went public about. there is a tendency with the biden administration reverse anything done during the trump adminitration. do you think they would go so far as reverse that, that is to pullback on counter attacks against russia if in fact we can trace some of the attacks to the government? >> well, it's all a matter of will. does he want to do that? he has the cyber command as the authority to do it. we gave him those authorities two years ago when we took off

the handcuffs of cyber command to go after them. it's a question of will they go after them and will they do it, and we need to tell putin or anybody else in the world, if you attack our critical infrastructure, we are coming after you. directly to the same thing you're hitting us with. you hit us on energy, we'll hit you on energy. you hit us on food supply we'll hit you on food supply and take the handcuffs off. they have the ability to do it. we have a great capacity to do that. david: let me just ask one question before we go to another panel on ukraine. putin was talking a little bit about that, of course once again he is a master of deception and disinformation, so what he said was largely deceptive but what happens if they go into ukraine, of course they took over crimea in 2014, the obama administration did little to nothing about that, let them essentially walk in. will the same thing happen this time if they go into ukraine again? >> well to me that's a european

problem. they need to address that and they have the agreements which they talked about that's with germany and french overseeing that, with the osce as well, and in the dawn bass region they have the ability to do that, the russian military clearly does, and they are going to have to address that going forward. that's a good question. look, we gave lethal aid to the ukraine. we gave them javalin and the missiles are the best in the world something that the obama administration did not do but we need to push the europeans much harder instead of holding hands, singing kumbaya, we need to address that with the europeans tell them look this is in your backyard, you need to fix it. david: i don't think that kumbaya works very well against the russian military it hasn't in the past anyway, keith kellogg, general, thank you so much for being here really appreciate it. well, there's also some crucial news out today from the federal reserve at about 2:00 p.m. eastern it's about 45 minutes from now, investors are awaiting fed chief jerome powell's inflation out look and looking for any hint of when the central

bank will pullback on all of that easy cash out there let's get to market watchers shana sissel and mark h ammerick, and charlie gasparino. charlie let me go to you first. markets clearly have been feeding off of the easy money for a long time now. is there any sign that powell might be willing to pullback a little from that? charlie: you know, everybody is mixed on this and i know what i hear from my sources. i don't think there's going to be any dramatic changes today, but i do think there will be some rhetorical changes that will address the fact that we have inflation coming, that the fed has created these massive market bubbles in bizarre assets like those meme stocks, amc, gme, that are trading well-above any sort of rational sort of rational expectation of their earnings. i mean, these are money-losing companies that are now worth

$30 billion. it's on him. he's got to know that these things never end well. my guess is that he will get something in terms of rhetoric to address that which is maybe he'll start tapering some time in the next century or something like that. david: by the way forgive me for interrupting charlie it looks like we're getting a two minute warning there for president biden, so i may have to jump in, but shana, there's politics in here. you don't like to think of the fed and politics mixed in, but it happens all the time. it has been for much of the fed 's history. jerome powell is up for reappointment in i think it's in 2022 the beginning of next year. might that enter into it because he doesn't want to be an enemy of the biden administration. if he was to tighten the screws a little bit and markets were to tank, that would not put him in good citied with the biden administration. >> well, i think that you have to balance that, right?

the fed's job is somewhat political, but there's also a responsibility they have to do the right thing for the economy. i think it be worse to not make a decision and then have the whole economy tank as a result. i think we need to pay attention to the dot plots. the fed dot plots is a survey of the fomc members and where they say rate hikes happening, i think we may see more people want rates to rise sooner, and i think that powell will be very careful in his language. he will probably start to use tapering, i don't think he'll stop using the word transitory although he might walk it back a little bit to acknowledge the fact that all prices are rising, and inflation is a concern. david: it is. >> but i do expect that he will remain somewhat conservative in the way he approaches this as to not freak the markets out but i think the markets want to see rates rise, i think it's concerning that the 10 year is falling, not rising. david: well you mentioned inflation is a concern. mark, the other big concern is

that you have 9.4 million un filled jobs. now, part of the mandate of the fed is to deal with unemployment. you have a surplus of jobs right now and a real deficit of workers willing to fill those jobs. that makes their bond purchasing , they're purchasing about $120 billion worth of securities every month. it doesn't seem like there's any call for it, when you have so many jobs and so few workers, does it? >> well the fed has dual mandate, as you know, stable prices, maximum employment and sort of a tertiary less- advertised one is financial stability and if anything, the fed is primarily focused now or at least has been on that employment component, so that is where their focus is going to remain but if inflation, which is already here by the way, becomes more pronounced and sustained or sustainable, then they will shift that focus somewhat, but in the meantime, they're absolutely focused on trying to get that unemployment rate down more substantially.

david: hold on a second, you have more, mark, you have more job positions a available than you have people, we don't have an unemployment problem. we have a problem getting people to work and charlie, that's why a lot of these bond purchases seem so out of whack. charlie: it's such a false number the unemployment rate now given how many people are on the sidelines and look what the fed is doing. it is inflating bizarre stocks. david: yeah. charlie: let's just be real clear here. they are basically telling retail small investors to go out there and make it very easy for them to mortgage and borrow, to buy stocks, because they can, and by the way, that is setting up for the bursting of the mother of all, if you think the internet bubble is bad, when it comes, when this stuff pops, it's going to be -- david: i hate to say it charlie but i think you're right. this doesn't end all that well, and shana, the other question is why are they buying mortgage

backed securities when we have a boom in the real estate market? i mean, that really, to be specific about what the fed is doing, that doesn't seem to make any sense at all, does it? >> no, none of it makes sense. you know, some great points have been made. we have jobs that can't be filled. some of that is people not wanting to go back to work. some of it's still the restrictions. i stand by my comments that there's a very low participation rate with women, because child care remains a major issue. david: of course it does. >> that's not going to go away whether or not the fed does anything but i think the fed needs to consider tapering, many of the fed governors have said over and over the last few months that tapering is coming and i fully expect that the taper conversation will begin today. david: mark, go ahead. >> i agree. i think the fed does need to begin talking about talking about and enunciate that it's having that conversation to use the phrase that jerome powell had been using, and i think that

will become more off obvious but not hitting the financial markets overhead with a sledgehammer today. they don't want to crater the equities market today. david: charlie talk about the politics inside the fed because we mentioned it with sha na. there is a lot of politicking going on, right? charlie: i think they are all on the same page. they want to keep printing money , they are all in agreement and by the way, we don't want to takeaway the punch bowl just yet by the way, taking away the punch bowl does not necessarily hurt this economy, okay? if you raised rates a little bit , let's just say they took the fed funds rate up, do you really think the u.s. economy is going to tank on that? the markets may tank, because they have to adjust to real interest rates and real value of money on how to borrow it, but the economy doesn't tank because of that. we have unfilled jobs, we have people that are out there speculating with their life savings because it's cheap and easy to do so, and, you know, a

lot of the blame does not go go to robinhood, it goes, you know know -- david: gang it's a great discussion but i'll have to cut it short. we want to squeeze in a short break again we're awaiting president biden to come with his own press conference, after we had one from vladimir putin. usually in these events these meetings, these summits, we have dual press conferences, this time, president biden didn't want it, he wanted separate conferences, we had a long one from president putin went a lot longer than he said it was going to go, and now, we are awaiting remarks from president biden. we are going to bring that to you live, right after this.

the lexus es. every curve, every innovation, every feeling. a product of mastery. get 0.9% apr financing on the 2021 es 350. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. [sfx: psst psst] get 0.9% apr financing on the 2021 es 350. allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily stops your body from overreacting to allergens all season long. psst! psst! all good ♪ when i was young ♪ no-no-no-no-no please please no. ♪ i never needed anyone. ♪ front desk.

yes, hello... i'm so... please hold. ♪ those days are done. ♪ i got you. ♪ all by yourself. ♪ go with us and find millions of flexible options. all in our app. expedia. it matters who you travel with. david: so any minute now, president biden is going to be addressing reporters after his historic summit with vladimir putin, that went on for a couple hours then we heard from vladimir putin, now we're going to hear from president biden. we will bring that to you live, as soon as it begins but we want to mention something about the fossil fuel industry, because that touches on a lot of the discussions that russia and the united states are having right now. a federal judge in louisiana has blocked the biden administration 's suspension of new oil & gas leases on federal land. this is a very interesting development that may play into

this may have international repercussions as well. let's get reaction from western states petroleum association regulatory vice president, tiffany roberts. tiffany good to see you. first of all, let me talk about this decision from the louisiana judge. how big is it for the fossil fuel industry? >> well, david, thank you so much for having me here today, and any decision that pertains to oil & gas drilling is obviously going to have repercussions around the market. i will say this , in terms of your viewers and what's important to takeaway, is to know that the regulatory environment, especially in california, where we're at, is getting worse and worse by the day. back in september, the governor of california issued a ban on the internal combustion engine car, internal combustion engine trucks. a few months later he came back, issued another edict banning oil & gas drilling in the state and then just last week, his folks,

his staff met and they discussed some additional plans, they are basically saying all of these bans that are happening today, they're not enough. david: tiffany forgive me for interrupting but we see a gentleman getting up at the podium there he's putting the notes of president biden out on the podium. that's what's going on. we did get the two minute warning so he's about to come in tiffany i'm going to ask you to focus specifically on relations with russia. the fact that we have an administration now that's really attacking the fossil fuel industry, on many fronts, how does that help russia? >> well, i will say that in terms of global dynamics, global politics in general, certainly, the more that we can produce oil & gas in this country, the better off we are. we want the ability to be able to produce in this country, and

we do not want to be reliant on other countries for our oil & gas resources. david: in fact during the colonial hack, which a lot of intel sources put right at the hands of the russian government, we ended up import ing. we used to be energy-independent. we ended up importing oil and other fuels from other countries some people say including russia is that true? >> that's absolutely true, and that's the case that we do not want. we have significant amounts of resources in this country. we should be energy-independent. that is what is ultimately going to be important and as your last story was talking about, impacts to the economy, if we don't have energy independence in this country, that certainly is going to have repercussions on the economy. david: now, one of the first things that the president did upon becoming president was get rid of the keystone pipeline , kill that project essentially, and almost simultaneous to that, he gave

the russians a free ride on their pipeline, their gas pipeline to europe through germany. does that make any sense? aren't our pipelines more important to americans than the russian pipeline? >> david, you're absolutely right. our pipelines are absolutely essential and they're important to be able to ensure, again, that we've got access to those vital energy resources that we need to get from point a to point b during the course of our day. we need those resources. we shouldn't be encumbering the ability of the state, of the country to produce those. david: tiffany thank you very much. i understand president biden is walking out. there he is. he's got a little hop to his step there. president biden responding to his conference with mr. putin. let's listen. >> i know it was easy getting into the pre-meeting. there's no problem getting

through those doors, was there? anyway, hello, everyone. well, i've just finished the last meeting of this week's long trip, the u.s. russian summit. i know there were a lot of hype around this meeting, but it's pretty straightforward to me, the meeting. one, there's no substitute as those of you who have covered me for a while know, for face to face dialogue, between leaders, none, and president putin and i share a unique responsibility, to manage the relationship between two powerful and proud countries. a relationship that has to be stable and predictable, and it should be able, we should be able to cooperate where it's in our mutual interest, and where we have differences, i want president putin to understand why i say what i say and why i

do what i do, and how we'll respond to specific kinds of actions that harm america's interest. now, i told president putin my agenda is not against russia, or anyone else. it's for the american people fighting covid-19, rebuilding our economy, reestablishing relationships around the world, our allies and friends, and protecting the american people. that's my responsibility as president. i also told him that no president of the 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 of 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 him. it's not just about 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 of human rights? i told him that unlike other countries, including russia, we're uniquely a product and an idea. you've heard me say this before again and again but i'm going to keep saying it. what's that idea? we don't derive our rights from the government. we possess them because we're born, period, and we yield them to a government, so the forum i pointed out to him that that's why we're going to raise our concerns about cases like alexia navalny. i made it clear to president putin and will continue to raise issues of fundamental human rights, because that's what we are. that's who we are, the idea is we hold these two self-evident of all men and women. we haven't lived up to it

completely but we've always widened the arc of commitment and included more and more people, and i raised the case of two wrongfully imprisoned american citizens, paul whalen and trevor reed. i also raised the ability of radio of 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 destabilize our democratic elections and we would respond. the bottom line is i told president putin that we need to have some basic rules of the road that we can all abide by. i also said there are 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 ask me many times, what was i going to discuss with putin 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, and that is, to discuss and raise the issue of strategic stability and try to setup a mechanism where we deal with it. we discussed in detail the next steps our countries take on arms control measures. the steps we need to take to reduce the risk of unintended conflict, and i'm pleased he agreed today to launch a bilateral strategic stability dialogue, diplomatic speak for saying, get our military experts and our diplomats together, to work in a mechanism that can lead to control a new and dangerous and sophisticated weapons that are coming on the scene now, that reduce the times of response, that raise the prospects of accidental war, and we went into some detail of what those weapon systems were. another area we spent a great deal of time on was cyber, and cybersecurity. i talked about the proposition

that certain critical infrastructures should be off limits to attack, period, by cyber or any other means. i gave them a list. if i'm not mistaking i don't have it in front of me, 16 specific entities. 16 defined as critical infrastructure under u.s. policy , from the energy sector to our water systems. of 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 task experts and both of countries to work on specific understandings about what's off limits, and the follow-up on specific cases that originate from other countries. there's a long list of other things we spent time on, from the urgent need to preserve and

reopen humanitarian syria, so that we can get food, just simple food and basic necessities, the people are starving to death. how to build it and how it is in the interest of both russia and the united states to ensure that iran, iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. we agreed to work together there because as much as russia's interest is ours, and to how we can ensure the arctic remains a region of cooperation rather than conflict. i caught part of president putin 's press conference and he talked about the need for us to be able to have some kind of mod us operandi we 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 resurgence of terrorism in afghanistan. it's very much in the interest of russia, not to have

resurgence of terrorism in afghanistan. there are also areas that are more challenging. i communicated the united states unwavering commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. we agreed to pursue diplomacy related to the agreement and i shared our concern about belarus he didn't disagree with what happened. he just says his perspective of avu ae leot oot qst sio siowt it imptamp tmpmp mee m m mnn bo orronorean bano nt cmuniteiout w w dihaid w w ie c t c t c d worintntident iynt int intreasar st andst b bithea world. two, cmunicamute dectlec ctlyhat t united stateta impantest ort t ofofat

our allie a three,eeoee carly layout our country presses priorities and our values so we heard it straight from me and i must tell you, the tone of the entire meetings, i guess it was total of four hours, was good, positive. there wasn't any strident action taken. where we disagreed, i disagreed, stated where it was and where he disagreed he stated, but it was not done in a hyperbolic atmosphere. that is too much of what's been going on. over this last week, i believe, i hope, the united states has shown the world that we are back , standing with our allies. we rallied our fellow democrac ies to make constant, concerted commitments to take on the biggest challenges our world faces and now, we've established a clear basis on how we intend

to deal with russia and the u.s. there's much more work ahead. i'm not suggesting any of this is done. we've gotten a lot of business done on this trip, and before i take your questions, i want to say one last thing. folks, look. this is about how we move from here. i listen to, again, a significant portion of what president putin's press conference was, and as he pointed out, this is about practical straightforward no nonsense decisions that we have to make or not make. we'll find out within the next six months to a year, whether or not we actually have a strategic dialogue that matters. we'll find out whether we work to deal with everything from release of people in russian prisons or not. we'll find out whether we have a cybersecurity arrangement that begins to bring some order

because look, the countries at most are likely to be damaged to do that are the major countries, for example, when i talked about the pipeline that cyber hit for $5 million, that ransomware that hit in the united states, i looked at him and said well how would you feel if ransomware took on the pipelines from your oil fields? he said it would matter, this is not just about ourself-interest, it's about 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. reporter: thank you, sir. u.s. intelligence has said that russia tried to interfere in last two presidential elections and that russia groups are behind hacks like solar winds and some of the ransomware attacks you just mentioned. putin and his news conference just now accepted no responsibility for any

misbehavior. your predecessor opted not to demand that putin stop these so what is something that concrete, sir, that you achieved today to pre haven't that from happening again and what will the consequences you threatened him? >> whether i stopped it from happening again he knows i will fake action, we made it clear that we will not continue to allow this to go on and the end result was we ended up withdraw ing and we closed down some of their facilities in the united states, et cetera, and he knows there are consequences. now look one of the consequences that i know, i don't know, i shouldn't say that's unfair of me. i suspect you may all think doesn't matter but confidence matters to him and other world leaders of big nations. his credibility worldwide shrink s. let's get this straight.

how would it be if 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 engaged in activities that he is engaged in. it diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains its standing, as a major world power, and so it's not just what i do. it's what the actions that other countries take in this case, russia, that are contrary to international norms, it's 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, the united states of america being one of them. reporter: mr. president a quick follow-up on the same theme of consequences. you said you spoke to him a lot about human rights. what do you say if alexi navalny

dies? >> i made it clear to him that i believe the consequences of that be devastating for russia. i'll go back to the same point. what do you think happens when he's saying that it's not about hurting navalny, all of the stuff he says is rationaliz ed the treatment of navalny and then he dies in prison. i pointed out to him that it matters a great deal when a country, in fact, and they ask me why i thought there was important to continue to have problems with the president of syria. i said because it's a violation of international norm, it's called a chemical weapons treaty can't be trusted. it's about trust, it's about the ability to influence other nations, in a positive way. look, would you like to trade our economy for russia's economy would you like to trade and by the way we talked about trade. i don't have any problem with

doing business with russia as long as they do it based on international norms. it's in 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 happen with us, it will not happen with other nations and he kind of talked about that didn't he today about how the need to reach out other countries to invest in russia, they won't, as long as they are convinced that, in fact, the violations, for example, the american businessman who was on house arrest and i had pointed out, you want to get american business to invest, let him go. change the dynamic, because american businessmen, they're not ready to show up. they don't want to hang around in moscow. i mean, look, guys. i know we make foreign policy out to be this great great skill

that somehow is sort of like a secret code. all foreign policies is a logical extension of personal relationships. it's the 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 could participate in the benefit to flow from them, it hurts you. that's not a satisfying answer. biden said he'd invade russia, you know? by the way that was a joke. that's not true, but my generic point is, it is more complicated than that. david sanger? there he is. reporter: thank you, mr. president. in the run-up to this discussion , there's been a lot of talk about the two countries spilling down into a cold war, and i'm wondering if

there was anything that you emerged from in the discussion that made you think that he -- >> i'm going to take my coat off, the sun is hot. reporter: anything that would make you think that mr. putin has decided to move away from his fundamental role as a disruptor particularly a disruptor of nato and 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 layout, very clearly, what it was the penalty be for interfering in that critical infrastructure? did you leave that vague? did he respond in any way to it? >> let me answer, i'll answer your second question first. i pointed out to him, we have significant cyber capability and he knows it. he doesn't know exactly what it is but it's significant and if in fact they violate his basic norms we will respond.

he knows, in a cyber way. number two. 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 a rhetorical question. you've got a multi-thousand mile border with china. china's moving ahead, hell bent on election as they say, seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world, the largest and the 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 i don't think he's looking for a cold war with the united states. i don't think it's about, as i said to him, i said your generation and mine were about 10 years apart. this is not a kumbaya moment as used to say back in the 60s

in the united states, let's hug and love each other but it's clearly not in anybody's interest. your countries or 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 lay down his arms and say come on. he's still, i believe, as concerned about being encircled. he still is concerned 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 the kind of relationship he's looking for with the united states. jen efer jacobs? reporter: thank you, mr. president. is there a particular reason why the summit lasted only about three hours? we know you had maybe allotted four to five hours, was there any reason that it ran shorter? also, did president putin said

that there were no threats or scare tactics issued. do you agree with that assessment that there were no threats or scare tactics? >> yes. reporter: also did you touch on afghanistan and the withdrawal of troops? >> yes, yes, and yes. let me go back to the first part the reason it didn't go longer is when the last time two heads of state spent over two hours in direct conversation across the table, going into excruciating detail, you may know a 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, our defense our intelligence and our, well, my foreign minister, my secretary of state was with me the whole time. our ambassador, et cetera, we brought everybody in. we had covered so much and so there was a summary done by him and by me of what we covered. labarov and blinken talked about what we had covered. we raised things and required

more amplification or made sure we didn't have any misunderstanding and so it was kind of after two hours there, we looked at each other like okay, what next? what is going to happen next is we're going to be able to look back, look ahead, in three-to- six 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 progress? are we further along in terms of and i'll go down the line. that's going to be the test. i'm not sitting here saying because the president and i agreed that we would do these things, that all of a sudden it's going to work. i'm not saying that. what i'm saying is i think there's a genuine prospect to significantly improve the relations between our two countries without us giving up a single solitary thing based on principle and/or values.

no, no, no, there were no threats. as a matter of fact, i heard he quoted my mom and quoted other people today. it was very, as we say, which will shock you coming from me, somewhat colloquial, and we talked about basic fundamental things, and you know how i am. i explained things based on a personal basis. what happens if, for example. so there were no threats, just like well if you do that then we'll do this. it was just letting him know where i stood, what i thought we could accomplish together, and what, in fact, if there were violations of american sovereignty, what would we do. reporter: [indiscernible] >> he asked us about afghanistan and he said that he hopes that we're

able to maintain some peace and security and i said that has a lot to do with me and he indicated he was prepared to " help" on afghanistan and i won't go into detail now and help on iran, and help on and in return we told him what we wanted to do relative to bringing stability and economic security and physical security to the people of syria and libya , so we had those discussions. yamish? reporter: thanks so much, mr. president. you say that you didn't issue any threats. were there any ultimatums made when it comes to ransomware and how especially when it comes to the working groups on russian meddling and on cybersecurity? >> well it's going to be real easy. they either, for example, on cybersecurity, are we going to work out where they take action against a 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 or violating international norms with russia? what are we going to agree to do and so i think we have real opportunities to move and i think that one of the things that i noticed when we had the larger meeting is that people who are very very well- informed started thinking, you know, this could be a real problem. what happens if that ransomware were sitting in florida or maine, and took action, as i said, on their single lifeline to their economy, oil. it be devastating and they're like you could see them kind of go, we'd do that but whoa, so it's in everybody's interests that these things be acted on

and we'll see though what happens from these groups that we put together. reporter: can i have a follow-up >> a third one, yes, go ahead. reporter: mr. president, when president putin was questioned 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 russia and he also says he doesn't want to see groups formed like black lives matter. what's your response to that, please? >> [laughter] my response is kind of what i communicated, that i think that's a ridiculous comparison. it's one thing for literally criminals to breakthrough, go into the capitol, kill a police officer, and be held accountable and it is for people objecting and marching on the capitol saying you are not allowing me to speak freely. you're not allowing me to do a,b ,c or d. so they are very different criteria. steve, steve holland, reuters.

reporter: president putin said he was satisfied with the answer about your comment about him being a killer. could you give us your side on this? what did you tell him? >> he's satisfied. why would i bring it up again? [laughter] reporter: you talked 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 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. let's see what happens. you know, that old expression goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. we're going to know shortly. egor, radio free europe and radio liberty. reporter: hello, mr. president. >> want to go in the shade, can

you see? reporter: thank you, yeah. so, i think you know society and the free press continues inside russia. >> yes. reporter: for example, radio free europe, the voice of america, the tv channel where i work, the foreign agents and several other independent media, so we are potentially being forced out in russia 50 years and my question is, after your talks with president putin, how interested do you think he's in improving as the media climate in russia? >> i wouldn't put it that way in terms of improving the climate. i would, in fact, put it in terms of how much interest does he have in russia's reputation,

that is not viewed as being contrary to democratic principles and free speech. nats that's a judgment i can not make, i don't know, but it's not because i don't think he's interested in changing the nature of closed society or closed governments 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 really good i told him i read most everything he's written, and the speeches he's made, and i've read a couple very goodbye organize graph its which many of you have as well, and i think and i pointed out to him, that russia had an opportunity, a brief shining moment after gorba chev and after things began to change drastically to

actually generate a democratic government, but what happened was it failed and then 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. putin decided was that russia has always been a major international power when its been totally united as a russian state, not based on ideology whether it was going back to czar and straight through to the revolution of russian revolution, and to where they are today, and i think that it's 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 power " is to in fact unite the russian people on the

strength of the government, the government controls. not necessarily ideologically but the government, and i think that's the choice that was made. i think that i'm not going to second guess whether it could have been fundamentally different, but i do think it does not lend itself to russia maintaining itself as one of the great powers in the world. >> [overlapping speakers] reporter: sir can i ask you one more question? >> thank you, sir. in the 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 putin had called you in his press conference an experienced person. you famously told hip, he didn't have a soul. do you now have a deeper understanding of him after this meeting? >> thank you very much.

>> [overlapping speakers] reporter: but on the military response, sir? >> no, we didn't talk about military responses. reporter: mr. president, you saying that there's no substitute for dialogue and also with what you said at nato that the biggest problems right now are russia and china. you've spoken many times about how you have spent, perhaps, more time with president xi than any other world leader, so is there going to become a time where you might call him, old friend to old friend and ask him to open up china to the world health organization investigator s who are trying to get to the bottom of covid-19? >> let's get something straight we know each other well, we're not old friends. it's just pure business. reporter: so i guess my question be , you said you're going to press china, you signed on to the g-7 that said we're calling on china to open up to let the investigators in, but china

basically says they don't want to be interfered with anymore, so what happens now? >> the impact, the world's attitude toward china as it develops. china's trying very hard to project itself as a responsible and very very forthcoming nation , they are trying very hard to talk about how they are taking and helping the world in terms of covid-19 and vaccines and 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 they did discuss as i told you in the eu and at the g-7 and with 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 mecca available 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. it's going to happennd we need to do that. thank you. >> [overlapping speakers] david: looks like that's going to be it. oh, hold on. reporter: so the families of the detained american, you'll follow through with that discussion. i am not going to walk away on this. reporter: why are you so confident he'll change his behavior, mr. president? >> i'm not confident. what do you do all the time. when did i say i was confident? i said, what i said was, let's get it straight. i said what will change their behavior is if the rest of the world reacts and deminnishes their standing in the world. i'm not confident of anything. i'm just stating the facts. reporter: then given this past behavior has not changed and in that press conference after sitting down with you for several hours, he denied any

involvement in cyberattacks, he downplayed and refused to say al exi navalny's name so how does that amount to a constructive meeting? >> if you don't understand that -- [overlapping speakers] david: all right, that appears to be it. what turned out to be very free- wheeling kind of presser at the end there, was very to the script in the beginning, the president had a list of questioners that had clearly been given and screened and then at the end, our own peter doocy from fox news asked a question about china and finally another question was asked about russia that kind of got under the skin, as you could see , of president biden there, walking back from the wings, to confront the questioner dead-on. it was very interesting press conference from president biden. i think it followed a much longer one from president putin

who went on for almost an hour, after their meeting of three hours, with a lot of discussion about international events, about what's happening in ukraine, the president saying that he wasn't going to accept any kind of anything in ukraine and said that president putin brought up the subject of afghanistan and said that putin told biden he would help on afghanistan, whatever that means we know they've been doing anything but helping the united states in our role in afghanistan, but we'll see what happens there, but the main focus was on cyberattacks, and the cyberattacks coming from russia on specifically on u.s. infrastructure. president biden said that certain infrastructures should be off limits to cyberattacks. he mentioned 16 of those infrastructures to president putin. the question is, should any infrastructures be attacked by people acting in russia, perhaps even at the behest of the russian government, that has

yet to be discussed openly. we will see what happens. i should point out one correction. the associated press was the first to ask a question and they said that there have been no counter attacks by the u.s. under the trump adminitration for cyberattacks on infrastructure or on educational, excuse me, or on election facilities in the united states. that's not true. there was a counter attack in 2018 and a counter attack in 2020 by cyber command, specifically designating targets inside russia that were targeting us, so that was incorrect information, i had to correct the record on that from the associated press. congresswoman ckat kammack is with us from the great state of florida. congresswoman we heard the president, our president, president biden, suggesting that certain infrastructure should be off limits to attack cyberattacks.

i would think that he would not qualify that and just say that any kind of cyber attack emanat ing from russia with any kind of cooperation or nod from russian authorities should be. >> in a word it's a bit biz soar that the president of the united states is qualifying what should be fair game for russia to attack. with ransomware and malware. this is the most bizarre thing i ever heard. this ties into what we've seen over the last few days, weeks, and months which is the projection of weakness from the white house. we've seen a bumbling, fumbling president here on the last few days on the world stage, which really fed into the narrative america is weak, that we are now last and that this administration will do little or nothing to hold people accountable and these nation states intent on doing us ill will. we know the dark side cyber gang

operate inside of russia with the blessing of the russian government. what on earth are people thinking it is okay to attack us but don't attack certain critical infrastructure industries? that is ludicrous. what are we doing here? david: hold on a second, congresswoman, in defense of the president and administration, u.s. cyber command has not been as far as anybody knows to be called off to counter cyberattacks. there may be stuff going on you don't know about? >> as member of the homeland security committee i have had several classified briefings in the scif with members about the cia, dhs, fbi, et cetera, and i can tell you i'm a little nervous about our world position on the world stage as it relates to national security and protecting the homeland. we have to do far more in the way of deterrents and performance of president biden today was anything but a deterrent to the bad actors intending ill will on americans.

david: congresswoman, we have to go. a fed meeting is taking simultaneous to the pressers. president of the united states and president of russia talking about their three-hour meeting in geneva, switzerland t was a very interesting press conference from both presidents. we'll see what comes of it with anything at all. with special news from the fed, our friend charles payne. charles? stuart: david, thank you so much, my friend. good avenue uni'm charles payne. the press conference beginning in 30 minutes. everyone wants a clearer message as the committee thought or even talked about tapering. will powell make the case that the fed is staying the course at least for now. taxes hitting every business and those pass us along are doing,

extraordinarily well. should they be in your portfolio. if you thought removing lockdowns would bring back the roaring '20s. hold off. maybe the economic juggernaut hit a speed bump. have we already peaked? i will ask larry kudlow about that. the big news. we go to washington, d.c. with the fed's call. edward. reporter: changes here. the federal reserve now sees raising rates in 2023. if you look at the dot plot. now where they were going to wait beyond that up to now, those members, now possibly see one to three rate hikes in 2023. three additional members voted next year there should be a rate hike. that make as total of seven votes for next year. on inflation, inflation projections go from 2.4% for pce inflation to 3.4% in 2021. the fed believes that pce inflation will come back down to