that means they should go to donbas. number one, closing the border between russia and ukraine in this area. and third, the elections should be held in three months. you don't need to be an attorney. you don't need to have any special education to know that this has nothing to do the minsk minsk agreement. this runs fully counter to the minsk agreement. additional commitments can rush a shoulder in this context customer everything is understandable. turning now. just as the united states carries out exercises on their queue territory, we did not carry any exercises on caring

personal to the united states. regrettably, the united states government is doing that right now. that is why the concerns should not be with russia but with united states. but we talked about that during our talks. turning now to the opposition in the citizenship of the that you mentioned. this person knew that he was breaching the laws effective in russia. he should have noted that as a person that has noted two times. he ignored the laws. this person went abroad for treatment and he did not register with the authorities. he came out of the hospital and then he recorded a video posting it on the internet and then that

requirement arrived. he did not appear, he ignored the law, and he was then -- he knew that he was then being investigated and he came back deliberately. and he did what he wanted to do. as for people like him with systemic opposition, unfortunately press does not allow us to get into in depth but this is what i have to say. look, i'm not going to say anything complicated. it's going to clearly understandable. if you can convey this objectively to your viewers and your audience, i will be very grateful to you. the united states has announced that russia as its enemy and its adversary. the congress did that in 2017.

the u.s. legislation has a provision. that provision says that the u.s. needs to support the rules and the order of democratic administration in our country and it needs to support political organizations. that is enshrined in american law. the u.s. law. now let's ask a question. if russia is an enemy, then what organizations will support america and russia? i don't think the ones that are strengthening the russian federation well. i think it's going to be those that are restraining it. that is the objective of the united states, publicly stated objective. organizing people american

i think it's clear that we should be cautious about it. but we are going to act exclusively within the content of russian law. we will continue with. we've heard that the american side is constantly how to rhetoric political prisoners in russia. wasn't discussed and how was it discussed? speak we've all seen relations with president biden and all of this started off with a very crude.

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

this president was asked the same question and the answer is different and given by president trump. in principle, everything that has happened in our country in one way or another is something that political responsibility is taken for. people in charge. as far as who is in charge, who is a murderer, and american cities, every day people are killed. that includes the people of organizations. you can't say a word about it. you don't have time to say a word and somebody is killed. i remember somebody who ran away and was shot in the back. fine, those are criminal matters. what about afghanistan? over 100 people were killed in one time.

let's say it was a mistake. that happens to. 2 to too. from drones or helicopters. civilians were killed in iraq. who takes responsibility? who is the killer? for human rights, listen. guantanamo is still operating now. it's not in accordance with anything. not international law, not american law, not anything. but it still exists. prisons. prisons were open in various countries including european countries were torture was applied. it is at human rights? i don't think so. there's hardly anybody sitting in this hall today that would say that is protecting human rights. that's already a practice. that is real policy.

based on these practices, we understand that this is done and continues to be done. it is being done by people who are getting money from abroad in order -- for the interests of the people who are paying them. let's continue, please. one question about the arctic. you said you talked about that for a long time. the u.s. has accused russia of militarizing the arctic. we heard from the secretary of state and may and concerns of russian military. >> we actively discussed that in pretty big detail. that's an interesting question. as for the arctic all by itself in the northern passage

specifically, it is extremely interesting for a number of countries economically speaking. as for the concern of the militarization of the arctic, they are completely unfounded. we aren't doing anything that wasn't happening during the soviet union. we are establishing infrastructure that was destroyed. yes, we are doing that at the modern level. it includes military and border infrastructure. also conservation infrastructure. we are creating basis for our debate to disaster relief services to save people if it comes that god forbid it. and also to protect the environment. what i told our colleagues is that i don't see any concerns. quite the contrary. i'm fully convinced that we can cooperate and we should cooperate in this area. russia and the united states are 1 of 8 members of the arctic

council. russia is chairing the arctic council this year. moreover, between alaska and russia, there was a straight. it is a well-known straight. one is russia and one is united states. this should spur us to join our efforts. the situation regarding the youths of the northern passage is governed by international law. 1982, i believe, and the polar code of conduct which consist of another of documents. i pointed out something to our partners. it mainly we, russia, we intend to fully adhere to these international legal standards. we are not violating anything.

we are prepared to assist all stakeholders and all companies and exploring the northern passage. due to climate change, the situation is changing. we also have new icebreaking ships that there. we definitely need to work in this area. it describes the legal jurisdiction. specifically, internal c is, in territorial seas, and see's that belong to a country's exclusive economic area.

in the open seas. you have the territorial waters which is 12c miles. you have other categories. and territorial seas, the military ships can go. as far as internal seeds, there's a particular regime when we aren't imposing anything on anybody there. i believe there are five seeds dominic sees. there are five total golfs or bays. there are almost 1,000 nautical miles.

these are our sovereign rights to either let ships go through there or not. but we are not abusing this rule. we are providing to anybody who wants. there are around 1,000 applications last year, i think. some of the ships are under russian flags and i were regulatory compliance code of conduct. if all of us together from all stakeholder countries, including the members of the northern counsel, here are some areas where we need to continue to work. i'm convinced we can find an answer. i do not see any problems we

cannot tackle. good afternoon, mr. putin. good relations, or at least not poor relations, between russia and america is always the goal. you talked with biden and biden agreed. and now you are talking about respect. before he talks, he talked about redlines. americans have some redlines. during the talks, were you able to reach agreements about the redline areas? is that something that would in proof relations or stabilize relations? as a whole, we understand what our american partners are staying and they understand what we are saying.

we are talking about redlines but i have to be frank, we didn't get to the point where we are talking in depth where the line would be drawn. we talked about cybersecurity. we talked about stability. i think that during this consultation, incidentally all of this should be discussed. i hope that we can agree upon it. i'm including the arctic matters in that. "abc news," our american branch. >> thank you so much for taking my question. president biden has said that he would respond from cyberattacks if they do not stock. did he make any threats? and a quick follow-up if i may,

sir, your list of political opponents in prisons or dead as long. russia has outlawed that organization calling it extremist. and you've out loud anyone supporting them to run for office. so what are you so afraid of? >> once more, let me reiterate what was already said about foreign agents. and about people who are positioning themselves as being nonsystemic opposition. irony answer to your colleague from cnn. this is the law of the genre so i will answer your question

again. the united states has adopted a law in accordance with which the u.s. had stomach has said they would support various political organizations in russia. at the same time, and made an announcement that the russian federation is in an enemy. they've spoken publicly saying that they will restrain russia. here's a question. what political organizations are the united states and other members of the western community, which organizations should be supported and russia? we are just like the americans. just like what the americans did back in the 1930s. we are calling them foreign agents. they are not prohibited from working. they can contribute to operate. if they are extremist in nature, that's another option. the organization that you mentioned has publicly called

for mass disorder. they have publicly called for breaking the law. they have pulled for minors to participate in activities against the wall the mech law. and they have talked about using molotov cocktails against authority as law. an entire movement developed and known as black lives matter. i'm not going to comment on that, but usually do want to say. 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 are doing our utmost in order to not allow it to happen.

fear has nothing to do with anything. could you give me the microphone please? >> you didn't answer my question, sir. if all of your opponents are dead, imprison, poison. so that send a message that you don't want a fair political fight? >> as for who is killing whom or throwing whom in jail, people came to the u.s. congress with political mass. 400 people. over 400 people have criminal charges placed on them and they face prison sentences of up to 20 or 25 years. they are being called domestic terrorists. they are being accused of a number of other crimes. so many of them were arrested right away after the event and

30 of them are still. the same thing happens in our country. we sympathize but we've no desire for the same thing to happen in our country. just a few more questions because soon the president will continue. please hand over the microphone. were you able to reach an

agreement about russians that ended up in american prisons? we discussed that. there could be some compromise that we enter into between the russian foreign ministry and the u.s. state department. they will would be working on it. you said that you discussed trade with mr. biden and that's probably the most positive business on both ends. what is a prospect that you see here? this doesn't depend on us, it depends on the americans. we haven't leveled any restrictions.

what i think is after some restrictions were introduced and the economy and commerce, that was done with the u.s. instead of russia. that has impacted some of our development but they did not have any critical effect. this has to do with the interest of american businesses. 200 people. the biggest delegation of people, an american delegation, was at st. petersburg economic forum. but due to that, some of the american companies have lost out. they have given up the business into the hands of their competitors in different countries. there is no practical reason but there are lawsuits.

as for trade with the u.s., it is $28 billion, roughly. it increased by 16% in this first quarter. let's have a couple of questions. the lady here, please. thank you very much for affording me the opportunity to ask you a question. a few years ago, you met president biden and that was when he was vice president. what he said was that he looked you in the eye and he said that you didn't see a soul. you said that means we

understand one another. tell me please, did you look him in the eye and what did you see? please tell me, president biden, did he invite you to the white house and would you agree to go to the white house? he did not invite me. for meetings like that, you need the proper conditions. you need to be ready. as for the soul seeing it or not seeing something, it isn't the first first time i've heard this. rankly, i don't recall this conversation but i will allow that it happened and escaped my attention. if you ask me what kind of a

partner or confrontational partner, i would say he's very constructed and very balanced. just like i expected. he's very balanced and can tell that at first glance. he talked about his family and he talked about what his mom said. these are important things that aren't related to anything directly but it shows as moral values it is all quite attractive. what i think it is as a whole, we spoke the same language. that doesn't mean that we have to look into our eyes, look into our souls. we don't need to have eternal friendship and love, but we had to represent our countries.

the relationship is a pragmatic one, primarily. yes, please. mr. bruton, based on the outcome of this meeting did you have any new illusions? i did not have any illusions. the new ones? there are no illusions. give her the microphone. the young lady. hello, mr. putin. a question about global china change. did you speak with president biden about that?

recently you gave an interview to nbc and do you think it is fair that the american president -- do you think it is fair to give a separate interview to the american media when it doesn't happen the other way around and how do you feel about your words always being distorted? about the distortion, that is the practice of international relationship. what can you do? you can't do anything about it. we've got yourself a long time ago. we are 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 of

the relevant countries. if you want to convey something in addition to people, we try to do that. i gave an interview to the american press and that's what i was trying to do their. to media in general, for example, president biden raised a question about freedom -- about the freedom of europe and russia or rather what we call a foreign agent. before that, there were other media outlets. before that, for the united states called us foreign agents and what we did in

response. this was done in accordance with the law, registrations, et cetera. a lot of problems have been created for our personal for money transfer on that sort of thing. we did not have that kind of problem. for american medias, the american media has not complied with all of the requirements of russia law. i think even here we can work through the ministries of foreign affairs on those matters. let's go over here. i was referring to the lady, they are. but you can go next. thank you very much. we all saw you shake a joe biden's hand at the very beginning. here's my question. were you able to bring mutual

understanding and trust with the president of the united states question what do you it's realistic at this junction to have a new revelation and where they're absolutely clear and transparent state and where b and understanding to where other countries need to go to? there is no -- in this situation, there is not much trust. there was some specter of trash that we took a glimpse of. the microphone. this one wasn't turned on. the coronavirus is one of the most important issues on the planet right now. was this issue discussed with the american president

coursework perhaps did you talk about the mutual recognition of vaccines? we did touch on it but only tangentially. we answered a request by the americans to send our equipment as humanitarian assistance. america is a big, powerful country and it's not like they don't have money. at that point, they really needed our equipment. we are prepared to continue cooperations in the future but we did not talk about it in general. we did not talk about it in detail, rather. in regard to president trump, is there any indication that it won't happen again? it's difficult to say.

that is because all of the activities that have to do with worsening the relations were not entreated by us. please. i'm not sure if you know, first, congratulations. what do you think of the score in the putin biden summit? the americans preferred coming to geneva. did they keep saying we were going to put pressure on putin, were going to put pressure on

russia. did you feel that pressure? another thing, i think that's pretty much enough. we didn't experience any pressure although there was a candid and open conversation. there was 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. that's not why people do that. what is the first part of your question? before the meeting, president biden said that it wasn't a sporting event and i fully agree with that.

the meeting had a result. it was substantive and it was concrete. it took place in an atmosphere that was geared toward achieving results. first and foremost, the sector of trust that your colleague talked about. >> joe biden is calling for a stable and predictable relationship with russia. but on the west, it is believed that he is unpredictable. are you prepared for unpredictability for the sake of improving relationships with the west? i envy you for the level of

artistry you've achieved here. as for the first question, do you think the west considers and secondly, are you prepared to announce that? just because the west believes that to be the case does not mean that is the case. you said that the west believes that russians form policies unpredictable. let me answer that. when the u.s. exited for no reason, why did they do that? that had an effect on stability. in 2012, what was stable about that? there's nothing stable about that at all. it's to luckily, joe biden is

addressing stability. he has made a sound decision to extend the treaty. the situation surrounding ukraine and crimea, everybody is dancing romantic. around that. a coup d'etat was staged in ukraine and he was prepared to leave power. there was no need to carry out a bloodied coup d'etat. you think that we are unpredictable. i don't think so. in my view, we are acting absolutely appropriately to counter threats that are emerging against us. the situation can be truly

stable and we need to reach an agreement on proper rules of conduct and all of the areas that we talked about. the facilities, cybersecurity, tackling issues that have to do with regional conflict. i think we can reach an agreement on everything. i believe the impression arose on the outcome of our meeting with mr. biden. blue fog. let's give it to one of the foreign outlets. i have a follow-up question. "bloomberg news." mr. putin, you met with trump in 2016.

after that, american sanctions were adopted and there were very quickly. did you talk with the biden about guarantees for the sanctions to be lifted or for new sanctions not to be on russia question frankie said that there is some hope. do you have more trust that there will be able to do it? it is believed that the american administration has more solidarity then during donald trump's term. you talked about cybersecurity and you had complications on ukraine. was there a working group? you talked about some redlines. did you lay out the

specifically? the understanding of that during negotiations in the key areas of negotiation. when people sit down at the negotiating table in order to establish relations not to intimidate one another. i've already said that we don't know what the domestic policy mood is like over there. we know the general situation but we can't say what's happening in details. there are some who are against russian development and there are some who are proponents for it. after our meeting and steps are taken, if you are called to one and 2016, what does that mean?

that would mean that we have lost the latest. one final question from a journalist from canada. >> said to a couple of my colleagues that you wanted unbiased. do you have translation? there is no interpretation. i can't hear it. maybe we will try on a different channel. yes? no? i can't hear anything. i can't hear anything whatsoever. one second.

if you wouldn't mind repeating. >> you sent to a couple of my colleagues that you wanted unbiased, fair questions, and coverage. i've a fair question from you. it actually comes my 9-year-old daughter who asked me before i left a calm here, one is the big deal with this summit? it is a complicated answer for a 9-year-old so i would like for you to explain to us. and your own words, mr. president, why is this relationship so complicated? and she would also like to know and i would like to know why young people are not allowed to protest in russia? >> yes, it is great that your 9-year-old daughter is interested in these questions. the question is not simple. you need to look around yourself and you need to see how beautiful the world is.

as the leaders of two countries with nuclear powers, this meeting is to make the world safer and more reliable. a place where everyone at home for people to flourish and for everyone on this planet. they are doing that. they talked about protecting the environment. about rivers being clean. about there not being any floods, droughts, about providing food to everyone on the planet no matter where they are. they will talk about issues of health care so when children grow up, they get sick less

often and they have the opportunity to study. they have the ability to answer confidently and i hope that you will cover our meeting based on those considerations in particular. i think you for your attention, have a good day. >> harris: i don't know if you could even believe what you just saw. this is "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here my house or emily companion kayleigh mcenany. also gillian turner and in the virtual seats, get ready. the very first time mike pompeo. i want to say just a couple of words before i get to and let me pick them up carefully. we saw that president of russia answering more questions in front of the media longer than i can remember either the current

president or his vice president combined. secretary. >> mike: harris, that was pretty more remarkable. that one on 40, 45 minutes. maybe a little more? tried to respond to all of the questions in a serious way. he has a trained kgb officer for sure. there's a lot to unpack there and i'm sure we will get a chance to do that. but it also highlighted how important it would've been to have president biden standing next to him. i know some of the things that he said there are fundamentally false. he does not reflect the reality of the world and how he speaks. he is a trained propagandist. you did not have an american president standing there saying, "wait a minute, that's not right." >> harris: not only that, somebody made the decision with biden going last to make this all about putin. you just gave a killer, even though our president doesn't want to call them that, i'll be

curious about why that might be, you said don't let this happen. use and it makes the current president look weak and that this is a failure. you said that going into it and now maybe it's a little bit more clear. no american flag up there, no american president, no pushback. and biden, now, will be asked about what? exactly what putin just said. everything he just said. what do you think? >> mike: it is the strangest thing. he was allowed to go out there and spout russian propaganda to create the moral equivalence of united states and russia on every front. whether it was blm, protesters, or our judicial system. we have a system and a constitutional foundation. they have none of that. he got free reign to go on for all of that time into the world spout this propaganda without coming to your point, an american standing next to him saying that's not what we talked about that's not right.

i knew this was the risk that was created. i hope that president biden is able to confront this even if it is just as an afterthought to what president putin said just a few minutes ago now. >> kayleigh: i noticed a trend with russia and with the china meeting where the american diplomats sat across from their chinese counterparts. both china and russia brought up black lives matter, use our divisions in this country as a political wedge. with president putin with crime in our streets. we can't apologize. they sensed this weakness. do you see this trend of bringing american division and using it as a cudgel on the world stage?

>> mike: you know this well. that's what i was speaking about with propaganda. it sounds an awful lot like what we have had democrat members of congress saying. that's what putin was doing. saying that we aren't to know any different than common thugs in russia with no system and no capacity for first amendment freedoms. to have them talk about black lives matter and try to frame the united states as something that the american left is playing into, you saw a trained professional propagandist using that against united states today. it does present a risk that the united states will look weak. we needed a president respond in real-time to those accusations. >> emily: on that note, when president putin was asked about the tone of the meeting, he said, "we did not experience any pressure." i wonder your thoughts about that. especially against the backdrop of him with political strikes

saying we will operate exclusively within the con strains of russian law. and then with the northern passage when he said he would adhere to international law. >> mike: they don't adhere to international law. that's for sure. it will be interesting to see. obviously, we did not hear president biden side of what happened in the meeting, but when president boudin says that he did not have any pressure put on them, i hope that's not the case. he said have felt pressure. this is a regime that has committed murder. we have agreed to talk about this. this is not something that we should be discussing without a clear callout of who the malign actor is. it's not an equivalent between our two countries. >> harris: i want to put a fine point on this because so much of what people believe it

is based on the optics that they see backed up by the people that they trust. those who influence us the most. our leaders, so on, so forth. today, when you see these two leaders separate after meeting for three hours and more than 1e out, their message and will be very different. what message does the united states, the world, what message do we need to hear from our president now? i know he will be asked about everything that this man was saying. this strongman was saying. but really, truly does his message get modeled by the american people? do we get bottled going second? >> mike: that's what i tried to identify answering your question. we let them out first to set the stage in the narrative what took place here. it was an enormous diplomatic mistake. it was a mistake for world

leadership as well. either we should have gone first or more importantly, they should've gone out together. i would've made for a candid discussion and we could have seen these two contrasting worldviews from these two weak leaders. they would've seen american strengths and we just missed that opportunity. we blew it. >> harris: gillian turner is with us today as well. the russian president was asked about russian military exercises with ukraine, crimea, so on and so forth. and he was pretty defensive at that point. we noticed his whole posture changed a bit there. can you talk to me about the significance of russia in these military exercises? >> gillian: it appears that over the last couple of months russia has been a massa, harris, a military presence on the border of ukraine which belies its intent to launch a ground attack there. i want to point out here,

harris, we are hearing not nearly enough about gluten. putin. he completely dismissed russia cyber warfare against united states grade school and let's go there. >> gillian: a list from an organization we can't recall. he also dismissed the idea that russia would allow for political discourse. he brought up january 6th saying that he hopes political activism of the type we saw on january 6th, he said something along the lines of political actors went into the u.s. congress with their demands. we don't want to see anything

like that in this country. there's a lot to be very critical of when it comes to putin here. i want to make sure we don't skate over that. mr. secretary, i saw that the top line news item coming out of that is at moscow and washington are going to return their diplomats to their post. what you think about that? >> mike: point was fantastical for what putin said. you highlighted three and i can go through another half a dozen things that are just fantasy that he tried to point up on world. i don't know what that will ultimately entail. we'll have to wait and see what president biden says and what they actually agreed to. your point about things that he said, he said that we were going to conduct conversations and engaged in conversations about cyber warfare. we need to make sure it's on a level playing field. 2 to to

you will recall that we were in the middle of those in the fall of 2020. we made real progress. but we were demanding that we include the chinese in this conversation. russia flatly refuse that. i didn't hear a single mention of china today. i hope president biden raise this. it is impossible to imagine a discussion about nuclear weapon systems and stability without the chinese at the table. >> harris: and when you talk about cyber warfare in the effective intellectual property and how much they've already done in a virtual world, secretary pompeo, it is inconceivable that china did not come up. i also thought it was a huge omission and it might have just been the questions from the reporting core too, but no mention of a ramp.

chyron when we say close, we mean moments away. i need to bring that up in case we cut out of here to go to that. but in regards to iran, what is something that you want president biden to talk about maybe that we haven't even asked him about yet? >> mike: you're right about iran not coming up. i hope that the president confronted him about that and make clear that would be something that is unacceptable. we are giving him a gift by going back by as well. if we didn't make clear that their redlines, this was an opportunity that was of no value to the united states. >> emily: we have talked about

risks and what the prior administration made it with your leadership. as we go into hearing president biden's response, what is the greatest risk that you see or that you could see based on the president's response or the meeting that these two held today question what is at stake here? >> mike: the greatest risk is that the world were see america as weak. it won't just be the russians and it will be that vladimir putin saw a green light to conduct activity. but xi jinping in china and world leaders are watching closely. if appeasement and apologies are the american model, than pirates around the world would see america is weak and they will drive a truck through that. >> kayleigh: if i could jump in here, a moment like this matters 48 hours ago.

president biden involved his language from calling putin a killer to calling him a worthy adversary. jen psaki had to come out and do some cleanup on aisle five because president biden, a question was asked of him. a question was asked same do you trust putin and he nodded. the reporter disputed saying that he looked her directly in the eye and nodded directly head of this high-stakes meeting. >> mike: it's hard to know what the nod was. the president might not be asked about that. i would assume he does not trust the russians come all given that much. but make no mistake, the lead up matters and awful lot. it's it's a backdrop for these meetings. the context for this was that we are destroying the american energy system and it is giving vladimir putin a free run to sell their products around the world. we reentered the paris climate accords' are going to destroy

the american workforce. the backdrop of today was weakness. i'm not optimistic but we all want america to be successful. i hope we hear that from him when he speaks in a few minutes. >> harris: something that you just said, the lead up is so important. today sleet up will be a meeting that we could not see and a man who just had a bigger world stage and he would ever get because normally when russian citizens see vladimir putin, et cetera news agency run by their government. unfettered access to a wide open press. that is the lead up to our president biden who is yet to give us that much unfettered access and his vice president. >> gillian: at mr. secretary, what i was going to ask you is that we now well know the areas

where russia and the u.s. today don't see eye to eye. when it comes to ukraine, russia, human rights, cyber warfare. he still sees areas of mutual cooperation between the u.s. and russia in spite of this. what is your best guess as to what those areas are and do think they still exist? >> mike: i imagine that a couple of the places will be. one that we worked closely with was counterterrorism. we tried to work everywhere in the world to make sure that we shared information to keep russians safe and keep americans safe from radical islam. i hope that they continue. strategic stability as an important one. russia, in spite of the fact that they've a weak economy, still has 1,000 nuclear warheads and a very capable delivery system. we have to be nine full and we have to take it seriously.

we need to reduce risk that there will be an accident or that somebody will make a bad miscalculation. it's an important place to continue that conversation but we must draw and all of the major nuclear powers including the chinese new communist party. >> harris: it's hard to read tea leaves but based on your intelligence so much more clement and russia just get stronger on the world stage or did they see something that we missed? >> mike: i hope that as we unpack everything come of the world will see the fantasy that we talked about today. he lives in a world where he is trying to divide the west and separate us. separate us internal with the united states. i hope that the world will have seen them for what they are pure propaganda's, no freedom, and the west will join together to work against the maligned activity that the russians continue to be engaged in.

>> harris: and therein lies the opportunity for president biden to unfold some of that and put it on display for the american people going -- following vladimir putin today. maybe that is more of the strategic move that was this order of things today with president biden going second. he has moments away from speaking and we are moments away from america reports. thanks for watching. >> john: it live from geneva near the lakeside. fill out where president putin was holding the news conference just a short time ago and we are anticipating president biden will start his at any minute. >> sandra: we are awaiting the two-minute warning and we will go to that and immediately when he begins we will have analysis of the high-stakes meeting called the show as former trump administration officials kt mcfarland, ric grenell, morgan ortagus and robert o'brien are here as well a