>> is -- just how strong is

prudent's position? we will be asking the france 24 debate. once again to clear. >> thank you. here are the headlines. a cordial handshake as the g 20 open in the rift over serial threatening to overshadow talks in the economy. the egyptian interior minister, it's not clear who was behind the attack onmohammed abraham's convoy in the cairo. taking the first tab toward withdrawing from the criminal court. the g 20 summit has started in russia amid sharp differences of military action against syria. the u.s. and france backed diplomatically by the uk.

russia is backed by brazil and china. >> a handshake and a smile for the cameras masking deep divisions. vladimir putin greeting barack obama in st. petersburg and officially it was dedicated to economic issues but the host who agreed to adding cereal to the menu. >> they have asked me to give the time and possibility to discuss other very acute topics of international politics not included in the original plan. in particular, the situation around syria. >> i suggest we do this during dinner. >> that is likely to be a stormy meal. the war in cereal has divided global powers and the u.s. may be backed up by france and its

calls for military strikes but the g 20 sees the two allies increasingly isolated as the russian opposition garners more global support. china calling for a political solution mirrored by india, brazil brazil, and south africa. germany and the uk already ruling out any participation of the eu insisting a military option was not the solution. >> explaining why russia now has the explicit racking of china and other countries in the opposition to u.s.-led to the terry reaction against syria. >> china's very concerned about the impact it might have on the global economy given that its own developing economy is starting to falter. they are worried any u.s. military action not sanctioned by the united nations would cause a massive spike in fuel

prices and us the last thing china wants at this point in time. we're starting starting to see the shifting of the power, the shifting of the players. the russians, the chinese, and other countries are now starting to shore up a stronger alignment 20 comes to international issues. on the other side you have the u.s. and france at this point. it will be an interesting 24 hours especially given that president obama does seem pretty isolated in his desire to go ahead. the only one that has come forward at this point has been france. they are not coming here finding a coalition of the willing, that's for sure. >> on the ground in syria, a second day of clashes between government forces and rebels in

a christian village in the west. the fighters included members of the al qaeda affiliated group and we understand that the rebels have now left after briefly surrounding a church and a mosque. in nearby mountains, heavy clashes are reportedly ongoing. to egypt where the interior minister, mohammed abraham, says he was the victim a cowardly assassination attempt. initial findings suggest a car bomb went off as his convoy traveled from his home in nasser city to the industry. >> burned cars, destroyed homes and stores, the bomb ripping through nasser district in eastern cairo. the attack targeted the interior minister the, mohammed abraham thomas survivor thing unharmed. >> cars in the convoy were destroyed and they rushed into

an armored vehicle that transported him back to his house. this doorman had his leg amputated. >> he appeared on state television pointing the finger at islamists saying egypt was facing a wave of terrorism. >> it was a cowardly assassination attempt. the forensic lab said it was set off from a distance and that they timed exactly when my convoy was passing through the street. >> this comes just three weeks after the interim government launched a bloody crackdown on as long best, supporters of ousted president mohamed morsi, who have been camping in the streets of cairo to protest against the military coup. morsi's muslim brotherhood has announced the attack leaving one dozen people injured including policemen. they have pledged to strike terrorism with an iron hand.

>> they are charging of the president and vice president with crimes against humanity. the cases will continue. here is our correspondent in nairobi. likes this is a first step in the kenyan parliament. they have did a motion which would then necessitate the parliament building away and drafting a bill that would be voted on by parliament and if successful it would be signed into law by the president. they are applying this to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court. even if kenyatta does withdraw, the international criminal court will continue with the trial. that is what they have said.

evidence has been gathered and the trial is set to begin next week. >> duncan, how do the kenyans feel? how much popular support is therefore putting him on trial when you consider day voting -- they voted for kenyata knowing what he was facing? >> they had a general election and the current selection uhuru kenyatta and his deputy were voted into office like quite a large martian, without the need for a second round. there is a groundswell of opinion among the kenyan electorate against international criminal court and has been some be him and allegations by press supported by many people here that effectively the international criminal court is an agency of neocolonialism, a tool to keep kenya in place.

>> the excitement is mounting in madrid, istanbul, and tokyo at of the decision on who will host the 2020 olympic games. in istanbul, there are fears that the protests may have affected the city's chances and in japan, facing questions on whether radiation from the crippled fukushima plant could affect athletes and visitors. >> days to go and hopes are high for the japanese summer olympic bid with state-of-the-art facilities and strong finances assured, they want to set themselves apart from competitors plagued with security threats and security problems. >> this 4.5 billion hosting fund is cash in the bank. >> they enjoyed widespread popularity at home is 70% of the residents wanting to host the

games. >> at the games are in tokyo, i will go to the stadium to cheer them on. >> on paper, it looks like a done deal. overshadowing the promising bit is the fukushima daiichi plant, the nuclear disaster looming over the olympic bid and refuses to go away. >> they should use the money to clean up the pollution and rebuild the area destroyed by the earthquake and soon army. >> contaminated water leaking and radiation readings have spiked more than 20% to the highest levels raising additional worries about safety and heightening the sense that pepco was unable to fix the problem. they are now taking charge of the cleanup operations in an attempt to alleviate concerns and reassure people would be safe to hold the 2020 olympics in japan. >> i will explain to the ioc that in 2020, it will not be a problem at all.

>> with strong reassurances headed to buenos aires and hopes that the olympics will return to japan are very much alive. >> that is it from the newsroom. now time to go to francois for the debate. >> just when u.s.-russian relations seemed headed for a deep freeze unseen by the cold war, president putin is hosting the g 20 summit. is this just another photo op or can they succeed where the security council has failed brokering more on this conflict that has claimed more than 100,000 lives and chasing one

third of syrians from their homes? they see this as sweet revenge for prudent who felt snubbed by the scale of western intervention in libya. today in the france vingt-quatre debate, we are looking at the court of vladimir putin. journalist at the newspaper -- let me get the pronunciation correct. thank you for being with us from moscow. you can read her saturday column fortnightly. also from the syrian opposition -- a serious national coalition. and from washington, bruce

stokes from the pew research center global attitudes project. the france vingt-quatre debate on facebook and twitter where you have been reacting using the #f24 debate. barely a mention of serious at the official 09 -- the official opening on. he did promise to bring up the matter at the official dinner. talk about the handshake we saw. click their body language has not been good over the last two years, i would say.

they need to talk and they would somehow manage. i'm not quite sure when or how but in the end of the day, both of them are looking to put forward their views and convince other people. and for obama, he has more convincing to do because he is the one trying to do something whereas putin is in the position of sitting back and observing, but he asked to also his case, i think. >> hiccup on that point. as i said at the outset, bruce, there is the timing of all of this. the last two days barack obama has been meeting with congressional leaders and they are building up to a vote on whether or not to follow the president in washington. it is strange for him to be jetting off to st. petersburg and then becoming back. >> in terms of timing and getting congressional approval

for this proposed military action, i think they just -- the juxtaposition could not have been more inopportune for the president. once he decided to go to capitol hill to get their approval, it would have been moved him to move rapidly to do that, but the juxtaposition of the president leaving town and the jewish holidays have made it difficult to move for a rapid vote in congress and as a result we do not expect a congressional vote until next week at the earliest. >> is time on barack obama's side? it sounds like it's not. the longer the wait there is before a vote, the less chance he has of getting congress to follow. >> the initial reaction i think has been in the first couple of days since the briefings began, it is likely to pass the senate but it will have more trouble in

the house. they are seeing momentum building in the house with the republican leadership coming out in favor of this vote. and we know with any of these decisions, not unlike a fish that sits out on the table, the more it smells. the danger the administration would face as the longer the delay in a vote, more exceptions people may raise, the more fiddling in the language that may be made. whether you get one version of this order another and it is separate and different language from the house, then you have to go to a conference committee. that delays things. it's not at all clear how limited the president's actions would be by that point. >> let's go to st. petersburg in russia. with france vingt-quatre's

annette young. president putin is saying that cereal would be brought up during dinner. it is so mikey would be a conversation starter or the topic you mentioned between the digestive and the desert ? >> there is no official mention of syria which is kind of ironic given it is the only thing we are talking about. we do not know when and how these discussions will be taking place and the reason it is not on the official program is there is a lot of impromptu organic discussions happening on the sidelines. often in rooms attached to the meeting rooms and people being pulled down and core doors and frantic discussions going on between the camps of various leaders to set up gatherings on the peripheries. of course, we are not expecting at this stage an official meeting to happen to train president obama and president putin. having said that, both the white

house and one of prudent's presidential aides say they're not close the to the idea of an impromptu discussion and i do find it rather hard to believe that those two men despite the fact they have such vastly different opinions on serial will pass up the idea to discuss the situation. it is certainly becoming more serious with the news in the last few hours of russian warships steaming in the direction of syria. we have a congressional vote happening next week and you also have 18 other world leaders here in this palace just behind me also very concerned about what's going to happen in regards to syria. having said that, you have two very opposing views to it. in between them, there are 18 or so nuanced views as to what is the right way to deal with this worsening crisis. >> annette, you mentioned the back channel activity going on around you.

i know these summits are always carefully script did. what do you feel has been the biggest surprise so far? >> you just said it. it is a staged, managed event. this is the closest i have gotten to where these leaders are. we are being cap in the media kit which is several kilometers down the road so it's very hard to get the sense of what is really going on. we get to things now and then and we are becoming experts at reading body language and trying to read the signals and signs happening as these men and women meet. things , at this point in time, i cannot really say. it has caused a lot of raised eyebrows which gives you a sense of how carefully staged this event is is the fact that the russians decided to change the seating order and they use the english alphabet as opposed to the rationale for that.

basically there would be one seat between president obama and president putin and now they are using the english alphabet so there is now five nations between the two meaning there will not be any awkward onstage to glances between the men to maybe get captured. >> annette young following the g 20 summit in st. petersburg for us. you heard annette say that serial has managed to invite itself on the agenda. it was not there at the outset that there are talks going on inside rooms. what are your expectations from the g 20? >> we don't expect much as long as russia continues this as long as diplomacy. they have announced that they would continue taking assad's side and it is so sad because a russia has taken the date haters

side. >> you heard bruce stokes mentioned how the slows down obama's momentum is of the timing of this event. when you see there is discussion going on, does it make you hopeful, pessimistic? >> at this point, all we have is hope. the longer this takes, the more assad will continue killing. he did not stop the bombardment until today. all we have is hope, but we don't expect much of it emma to be honest. >> a fresh sign that barack obama and vladimir putin will not be going on vacation together. united states envoy to the u.n., samantha powers, coming out to say that they continue to hold the un security council hostage on syria. that ms. also be timed with what is going on.

>> i feel like there has been some interesting hints. do not know if you should put too much stock in them but putin in his interview with ap on the first russian channelaid he not rule out a military response if it was proved that chemical weapons had been used. he then went off in a tangent. you have to look at it from the russian point of view. the fact of the matter is that they have taken a position that they will always take -- they don't like intervention. at the same time, i feel as though they need to prove their case which is that the chemical attack was carried out by the other side. he said in his interview that chemical warfare is a crime. if the evidence presented is compelling enough, might define

himself in a kind of a box? he cares about international diplomacy. i think there may be -- may be -- some wiggle room. >> he just saw those images of the world leaders heading to that dinner where they will be talking about syria. france vingt-quatre futures -- viewers are divided when we put the question to you for sorting out this situation like syria. "i prefer the g 20 because the u.n. is slow when taking a decision. cosaying, not a question of preference but a question of political action believing that the u.n. is the place to go to sort out these differences. let me ask you.

how do your readers feel about the allegations that assad used chemical weapons against his own people the? do they contest that allegation? do they feel as though it is assad? >> i believe that he could do such things. america has not shown any proof. we cannot judge this. i truly believe that assad could not do such things. >> what makes you feel was though it was not assad that did it yet co. what do you see as the reason why? >> he's a quite famous man in russia.

once i had an interview with him and he told me about his personal meeting with bashar al- assad. after my conversation with him, i think he is a good man. he is not a man who could do such things. >> you are convinced that it was not assad. >> they are in syria the moment producing all of these videos. we understand russia' or of jihad because of previous experience in chechnya. the russian intelligence services, they know where the extremist element comes from. again, here, i would like to say that we wish russia would take the right side and take the people's side. they have decided that dictators in the region have lost interest in the area and now they are

playing this card supporting assad. they are betting on the fact that the people in syria would not win even after 30 months when it was peaceful and now when it moved to an armed revolution. speaking of chemical weapons, let's talk about the basic facts that these chemical weapons, everyone who was killed were civilians. 1500 civilians and they were in opposition controlled areas plus the bombardment came from assad controlled areas. these are basic facts. in addition to the fact that we have doctors and journalists on the ground who have evidence with them. assad media confirmed the use of chemical weapons. iran confirmed the use of chemical weapons. chemical weapon used was confirmed.

who has used it? there is a report by the american and french intelligence services that and firms mr. hollande -- >> yet, coming out ahead of the u.n. report and the group of emerging giants staged their own side meeting at the g 20 summit earlier. they put out a statement expressing weariness. bruce stokes, they seem to be siding more with putin than with obama. how do you explain that you ? >> the public does not want to get involved. we did a survey in the united states and our survey, 48% of the american public is against involvement. only 29% are in favor.

because of the use of chemical weapons. you see the same in britain. very strong support from parliament opposing the british and going with the americans on a military strike. the french public is in favor of a u.n. intervention but not a french participation. the german public strongly against. these leaders face public opinion problems at home. based on our experience and other kinds of interventions such as the bombing of serbia and so forth, what we find is that across the board, the public is against these things when they start and support the spikes right after because there is a rally around the flag and then the support begins to wane very rapidly as these things become a prolonged issue. from a political point of view, these leaders face a real dilemma.

>> the publics do not support it . >> a real dilemma all around and one as well for vladimir putin to some degree. we will see how when we come back. you're watching france vingt- quatre debate. >> welcome back. this is the debate. let's give you a sample of the stories we're following for you at the top of the hour. the deep divisions at the g 20 as it gets underway in st. petersburg and the situation with syria overshadowing the summit as they sit down to dinner. has the law delivers its first official warning over u.s.-led plans to shrike the cerium regime. they are saying them constitute organized terrorism that threatened the region. the interior egypt escaping a car bomb attack targeting his convoy in cairo.

parliament in kenya starts the procedure to leave the international criminal court. this is with the trial of the kenyan president and vice president to to start in hague next week. we will also be telling you about the 24-year-old son of the sporting director who is the latest victim of gangland style score settling in the mediterranean killing 15 and marseille. those and much more for you at the top of the hour right here on france vingt-quatre. welcome back or welcome if you are just joining us. this is the france vingt-quatre debate looking at the g 20 in the court of vladimir putin and what is dominating the conversation -- syria. joining me, a reporter from this russian magazine.

emma from the opposition syrian national coalition and from washington, bruce stokes of the pew research center's -- i've lost my words. the global attitudes project. right? >> that's right. >> i remembered. president putin, by the way, we were mentioning just before the break about how he was putting condition saying that if it was proven that if assad was the one who carried out the camel attack -- the chemical attack that russia -- >> he would not rule it out. does that constitute a window? i'm not sure. >> that's what he said. he has been blowing hot and cold, it seems. the russian president also calling the u.s. secretary of state a liar. >> i saw the debates in congress. congressman asks mr. kerry, is

allocated their -- is al qaeda there? but al qaeda units are the main military echelon there and they know this. but he is lying and he knows he's lying. it is sad. >>,. >> he's calling the congressman a liar. what is mr. putin in this case? >> what about the comments about getting financial support from these groups that are supporting them. >> there were very strong messages and i think they need to take decisive action against assad. the u.s. credibility is a question of u.s. credibility today. this headline was set up by mr. obama and his administration for assad. they're hoping to challenge the

world by using this and he continued. it is the u.s.'s credibility in the region -- >> there is a power vacuum to a certain degree and the jihadist who are better trained that fighting our ready to fill that vacuum. >> this is the exactly the mistake of the international community. we have been asking to support the democrats and the moderate fighters under the military supreme council since more than one year. we have not seen it. these extremist elements have their room supported and they do have their own trainers, etc. this is the excuse of the international community. they say there is no coalition. we have a political class. it is progressively getting more organized.

we have the media to go into these liberated zones and see the self governance by the local councils and the civil activists . how could there be a vacuum you co. we have not seen any thing like this. >> a bruce, and the going on right now on capitol hill? is there a talk about what could be between doing nothing and hitting with airstrikes? or is that just not at all part of the discussion? >> some of the of the president's proposal are calling for further diplomacy, possible economic sanctions, although it is unclear when they articulate this who the economic sanctions would be against. i heard an interview this morning with one member of congress who seemed to be implying we would have economic sanctions against russia that

would be a bit off the reservation, but it does seem to me that the opponents are trying to find a way to articulate an alternative to action and so far they have not found a line, a narrative that seems to work other than we would rather not be involved. there are polls that definitely show that the public is very worried about what this could lead to in terms of escalation. they're worried about the u.s. getting sucked in to a long-term involvement in the majority are worried that it would be ineffective. it's not as if there are strong alternatives being put forward. it is more a resistance to getting involved. >> when you hear the russian president calling john kerry a

liar, what is your reaction? >> he's very good at off the cuff chief shot, sometimes grossly so. -- off the cuff cheap shots. for vladimir putin, the united states, that is who he is up against. he sees things actually in a cold war way. it is a zero-sum game. what is good for the u.s. is bad for russia. despite what he says and it is interview he denied it, but there is a personal element to this. it has been improved since he came back to power. >> is the the whole hot and cold question. getting word that the white house is saying that obama has canceled a trip to california next week to remain on capitol hill and to push through the

syrian resolution. a question on twitter. will obama and putin have a one- on-one meeting in the g 20? we know originally they were supposed to have a bilateral summit and it was scrapped by obama. anything is possible. >> sometimes the g 20 is like mass at st. peter's. there is sort of a formula that everybody goes through. in this case, there's a lot of stuff that goes on in the back corridors and a snotty is between the two leaders but also the top people. conversations are had and i would not be surprised if they do not sort of have an exchange at some point. i think it's actually too bad in my book that obama did not go to moscow. i don't think he would have been able to make it given the stuation. back to the personal kind of tit-for-tat quality here, after all, he called putin a slouching

bully at the back of the class. that's not very flattering. there is a side of this that both of them need to get over that kind of personal sniping. >> are people in moscow worried that this kind of sniping, this kind of rhetoric, this name- calling could get out of control ? do people feel like it is perhaps going a little too far between moscow and washington? >> i do not think that people in russia worry about it or even think about it. we have a lot of our local problems. i don't think it would do much. we have already had one cold war in our history and it was the real cold war and now it is just aims between two great politicians and i do not think that putin and obama are not friends anymore or something

like that. [inaudible] putin has a lot of things to do. he will have more time meet with other politicians. maybe obama will have more time for sightseeing in beautiful st. petersburg. >> you think a lot of this could be grandstanding. some are now wondering -- >> by the way, i saw a picture from june about obama and prudent. they both look so sad. they do not want to see each other at all. obama even laughs about this picture in america on a late- night show. that is like an official thing

that they cannot meet each other. click the official script is what you are saying. some now wonder if it is not moscow but tehran that could tip the scales on syria. over the weekend, a non-verified audio transcript as the moderate quoting that it was assad who gassed his own people and it was picked up and later deleted by an iranian news agency. then on wednesday came this tweet for rosh hashanah, the russian new year. later, they spoke to the tweet. basically saying, wishing a happy new year to all jews, especially all iranian jews. later, a government spokesman insisted it was not him but fans who had been tweeting. later in the day, the ayatollah

calling allegations of an august 21 chemical weapons attack i the regime, a pretext to launch strikes against the country and pledging support for damascus until the end. we know there is a tug-of-war going on inside iran between moderates and conservatives and syria is part of it. we are seeing how iranian student like the idea of chemical weapons and the experience the full brunt of it during the iran-iraq war. could tehran review its view of assad? >> i don't think publicly or on the surface. i think these things suggest that this is a more troublesome issue than we sometimes seem to give credit both for russia and iran. again, russia has also said that it is a crime. they don't have this compelling evidence that assad did not do it.

in both cases of iran and russia , what if we do or do not strike ? what about the russians and the iranians? you have chaos if not a continued civil war maybe gets out of control. things will not return to what they were. they have issues to worry about. i just wonder whether there is not a little bit of wobble. quick summary reading too much into this? the supreme leader is staying on message. we saw his statements coming out also pretty much against the same line. are we reading too much into this or do you feel that they may be wavering haunted by chemical weapons? >> they're trying to be on the safe side just in case.

i doubt iran and hezbollah will give up at this moment because they have supported him fully until this moment whether militarily, financially, or actual forces on the ground. i really seriously doubt there will be any change of position at this moment. however, i would like to comment on one point which is the ineffectiveness of specific strikes. nothing suggests so far that diplomacy could change position which is what we have seen in the last months, however we have seen assad's position in lebanon in 2006 where we had the u.n. resolution to disregard and you had to leave lebanon at that time by the door and come back through the window. he was obliged to go for the dialogue. today, the effectiveness of these strikes to at least have

him get into a dialogue down for a compromise in this case then his supporters will actually be questioned for their position. they believe that they're going to win until this moment and once they see the strike, they might pressure him as well to go for the dialogue or accept the fact that all serious and in the same shoes today. >> bruce, stokes, how do they feel about the iranians? it seems as though it is the internal tug-of-war inside of tehran? >> clearly the americans are trying to piece together, just as you are in your discussion, what exactly is the message the iranians are sending us? they seem to be sending a variety of messages and there may be some disagreement inside the iranian leadership and they are sending two messages. the broad message is the administration has not been

emphasizing that what we do in this area will have an impact on iran. much of the discussion in congress has been about the implications for our iran policy. one challenge the president seeks is if he loses, does that make any pressure he's trying to bring on a ron less credible -- on iran less credible? americans are much more willing to consider military action against iran than they are this immediate military action against syria, but does the more recent serious data suggest that if we got really close to actually striking a ron, would the american support for that go down? that is one of the questions that we will not know the answer to one till it happens. must be something that leaders

and the administration are pondering and thinking about. >> once again, the ghost of iraq and afghanistan weighing on everyone's mind as you begin to consider things like strikes. the g 20 summit, a prelude to an even bigger show of russian prestige. the winter olympics in sochi. olympics was after the invasion of afghanistan and the u.s. boycotted. let me start with you, bruce. how much do you think the syrian conflict could weigh on the sochi games? >> i do think the lesson that most americans have drawn, and this is anecdotal, from not dissipating in the russian summer olympics in 1980 is that it was a mistake. i do not anticipate that there would be any attempt to boycott the winter games in sochi.

that being said, depending on where we are in this process and how involved the u.s. is, how involved the russians are in whatever happens down the road, it would certainly be an issue that could interfere with the conversation around the olympics. the press coverage and other things might get distract did by this. just as the russian policy on homosexuality has already become an issue, it is not inconceivable that you could see one of the geopolitical issues become a discussion that the press is engaged in and is a distraction which is obviously what the russians want. >> do you agree that this could poison the party at the olympics? >> as you are saying, this could be the sort of press abuzz

issue, articles that will come out about gay rights negative articles about russia in general, but there are plenty of those right now. i do not see it really getting in the way of the actual games for the reasons that were just said. basically, people really don't want to let sports get politicized. as i say, i do not think russia comes out of this in the court of public opinion in the united states and other places looking very good on the serious question precisely, again, because of this refusal to face the evidence that seems to be out there. that is a larger issue that we will see in the months to come. >> of russia's might has followed its huge oil and gas deposits, mostly up in the last couple of years and now growth has started to slow.

russian manufacturing pointing to an upcoming contraction of economic activity. could that help putin's bargaining position on oil and gas -- could that help his bargaining position? >> in america, russia -- america is producing its own natural gas and therefore the supply is much greater and therefore this kind of monopoly position that they had is weekend. in terms of the round manufacturing, is is a population that is pretty patient in the people who are

poor in russia got a little less pour over the last 10 years but a lot of them are still very poor, so a little bit more poor, a little more rich. not sure it makes any difference. i do not think that wooten's popularity at this point, he has his electorate and they are buying into his arguments on all sorts of things including anti- american. the electorate that does not like him does not like him not because of his economic policies but because of his political policies. likes a few years back, barack obama talked about hitting the reset button with relations with moscow. u.s. president admitted that it has not happened. >> as i indicated a while back, we have kind of hit a wall in terms of additional progress. i have not written off the idea that the united states and russia will continue to have

common interests even if we have some very profound differences on some very other issues. where our interests overlap, we should pursue common action. where we got differences, we should be candid about them and try to manage those differences but not sugarcoat it. >> elena, hitting a wall there as barack obama describes relations between the u.s. and russia. do you agree? >> i don't agree with him. can i tell my position for the gay scandal deco i'm sure there is no gay discrimination in russia. but for some countries in europe , america wants to discriminate and they want to use

[indiscernible] there is a law that does not allow homosexual relationships around children. they cannot form their own opinion because they are too small and they cannot describe themselves. we protect our children. we do not want them to grow up to be homosexual if they were forced. i'm very sad [indiscernible] he just said that there is no discrimination for gay people and lesbians. and she came under some punishment, for what?

>> the remarks of the champion pole vault are you think were misconstrued? a law to protect children? that is not how the story read here in the west. >> these are games of symbols. it's a law that says you should not promote the image of homosexuality. ok. let's talk about what that means. does that mean it should not be in movies? is that just a pretext to stop certain kinds of publications or behavior? >> why is this coming up now? does this have to do with things inside of russia or outside? >> it has to do a little bit with the putin message that we, russia, hold the traditional family values where a country of solid virtue and in the west,

they do all of these crazy things and they let gay people get married. to say that gay people are not discriminated against in russia i think is wrong. there is an enormous prejudice and we are hearing it through this debate. having said that, why make the debate? why make it happen? i think it is to stake out an ideological position. we are the holders of traditional values and the west has lost its way. >> final point on this from bruce stokes. how close are we to being back in the cold war between the u.s. and washington? how much, again going back to a barack obama said. how much of a wall have russian- u.s. relations hit? >> the cold war analogy is one

that we should try to stay away from but it's easy to get back into. clearly relations between russia and united states are not on a good footing. our national interests interests seem to have diverged. as we're both on the security council at the u.n., we see points of clash where we could block each other. i think the reality is that in many spheres, what goes on and russia in the russian position on issues is not any great interest to the united states. we are not competing for influence in brazil with the russians. we're are not competing with the russians economically or in a space race. i do think that a better way to characterize this and the potential challenge this places for all of us is that russia is

not that relevant to the u.s. except on some of these very key issues like syria, iran, li issy need them and we have no other points of contact and not a whole lot of incentive to develop those points of contact as we are living in pursuing different goals. >> or where it matters at this point. thank you very much, bruce, for joining us from washington. and joining us from moscow, thank you for being with us here for the france vingt-quatre debate.

 >> keeping steady on the road to recovery, the european central bank keeps interest rates at a record low to keep both on track. >> at the nasdaq market site in times square, new york, venezuela evaluating options as they try to tame out-of-control inflation.