thank you so much for being here with us. whatever your persuasion, we wish you a good weekend. good night from nbc news headquarters in new york.

it seems to me that we are partners. and of course, we have to coopera

cooperate together. you say there was a disaster in london. somebody poisoned two russian citizens. and it's a tragedy ill like to confirm. and i'm very much surprised as to why the uk government has decided to blame russia. frankly, there is n evidence rerding the russian involvement in this exercise. ou say that the united states has decided to sub port british ally. and they have decided to close russian consulate general in seattle as well as to expel 60 russian diplomats. that's very interesting. you see that what is protects for such. >> let me ask you, if i may. you say there's no evidence of russian involvement. do you agree that acknowledge

that it was a soviet era nerve agent used in this attack on the two russian citizens in great brita britain? >> you see that frankly, i don't know. you say that what we offered and what we have requested from our british colleagues, just only to give us evidence, to give us proof regarding the enrollment of russian site into this accident. we have accident convention on prohibition of chemical weapons. the headquarter of this convention in the hague. let's seek together and in accordance with pa riggss of this convention, let's cooperate and let's try to find out what has happened in london. and, please and please, let's work together. and let's decide what should we do together, not to permit such

accidents happen again. >> if you could see the proof and it was this nerve agent and it is a soviet era nerve agent, would you conclude as the brits have that the russians are behind it? or do you think it could be someone else who has access to this nerve agent? >> there are some questions about your questions. first how do you know that this is a russian agent? the second question, it's a strapg situation. so very after the tech with this chemical agent, uk especially lease -- used antedote. why they decided to use this or that ant edote they know what hs

been used against those russian citizens. why has it happened to close to uk military laboratory. >> are you suggesting the brits are behind it. >> you say that. i don't want to plam anybody. what i want, i would like to cooperate with americans, can uk specialisttother in accordce with provisions of conventional prohibition of chemical weapons. by the way, the united states as well as uk have ratified this convention. it scenes that they have to oblige the provisions of this commission. that's all what i want. you say that it's like your court, for example. you'll say i have some evidence.

you'll say to the judge, i have some secret information .it's in my pocket. i cannot reveal you. but please trust me he has killed a person. so it would be enough for the judge to send that guy to their death. >> well, the brits have given some information. they've identified the nerve agent. they say it is the novichok nerve agent. >> show us the initial investigation. i would like to emphasize and repeat it 100 times. we would like to cooperate together. but please, let's look at the situation from the beginning. you say that madam may has blamed us, saying that you are responsible for this attack. you will have just only 24 hours

for reply and full stop. it's impossible. >> we talked about this at the beginning, but for most americans, they think of the rock bottom of relations between our two countries as the cold war. do you fare that we are in a new kind of cold war? are relations that sense? is it that bad yet? >> there is no definition. what does it mean, cold war? and it depends upon us to decide whether we are in cold war or not. but again, of course, i don't remember such bad shape of our relations. you'll mention, i say there's a great mistrust between the united states and russia. but at the same time i would like to emphasize that we have a

great potential area of cooperation. when i met various politicians, i said that maybe -- i said that maybe you will be surprised but my prediction that web cooperate in syria, in middle east. because as you know, i worked six years in ministry of defense as a deputy menster responsible for international military relations. and i know how we at the time, ministry of defense, i appreciate potential -- i would like to be very paushs. i would like to be very cautious potential cooperation between the united states and russia. it's very important even when we

think about the lives of american soldiers as well as russian soldiers. >> may i ask about the relationship between president trump and president putin. president trump recently called president putin to congratulate him on his victory in the election. there was a report in our press that he was told -- president trump was told by his advisers do not congratulate president putin. what did you think of that? >> i think nothing, because i don't know what has happened in administration of mr. trump. it's up to him to decide who is with him and who is not. what i know, i know official reports from kremlin, minister for foreign apairs. it was constructive conversation. could i add even that it was warm conversation. >> warm? >> yes. it's my position that it was not mentioned in the statement. but how i read it.

and if you look at the substance of the conversation, own our two presidents have discussed the real problems we face today and how it is important to event our teches to take the this challenge challenges to our security. the security of the united states people as well as the russian people. and you they that there was a proposal to organize summit. for me it's very important and i can say it's a very positive signci signal from the united states that it's high time for two presidents to seek together and to discuss by the way, shape of our regulations. what will be necessary to do for us, how to stabilize. >> you say the two presidents will get together for a summit? did they talk about that? >> i hoe. it is in the use that maybe i will provide you with the

documents from kremlin. it was published that they discuss a poential summit, potential meeting between them. it's very important. by the way, i was very much disappointed that there was no full fejed assignment in vietnam. our president -- you how to say -- >> on the sideline, yes. >> but they endorsed very important document, by the way. >> when we come back, part two of the exclusive interview with russian ambassador antol antoli antinov. we'll see how he responds next.

>> we're back with.

here, questioning of the ambassador with tampering of the last election. >> as you know, russia has continued to deny interference into our 2r0 16 election. you say show us the proof. and now a special prosecutor, robert mueller has obtained a lengthy indictment against 13 organizations and he lays out his case. he lays out the proof. are you convinced now that you' seen this evidence? >> how do you any that some americans hack us. they interfere into russian election. does that mean that theed a min strags of the united states woult in favor of such attack. >> that's important, you admit, you acknowledge that it was russians. >> i don't know. maybe they were russians maybe from north korea, maybe from uk.

maybe from france it's important to investigate. >> if the russians -- i know you don't like if. >> not politician but diplomats. >> yes, of course. if it is the russians that are identified in this indictment that did this conduct, meddling in the election, is that okay by russia? >> what does it mean meddling? i don't understand. what does that mean? what kind of consequences? so they interfered in what kind b of process? i don't understand. i am not specialist in this field. >> you mentioned a few minutes ago that president trump and president putin had had a warm con ver saegs when he recently called. some here in this country have noticed that president trump does not criticize president putin. he very rarely criticizes president putin.

>> why should he criticize president putin? >> well, the u.s. government thinks pdeutin meddled in our election. >> if we respect each other interest, it means why did mr. putin did not criticize mr. trump. two leaders are talking not to criticize each other. they are meeting -- they have meetings. they have had talks to decide real problems. mr. trump raised this question to mr. pew tip and mr. putin made it clear that we didn't interfere in your election campaign. we didn't undercut the internal security of the united states. it was clear.

that's why if there is other questions, again, let's sit together and let's discuss this. >> some expect that robert mueller, the special prosecutor may next indict russian officials, officials in the government. what would the response be? if that were to happen would that take it to another level. >> excuse me, today i sniel a lot of. first of all, i don't want to interfere in u.n. relations. we are very close to the situation. when ambassadors will be kicked out of the country. >> w ended up where we started. you talked aut a lot of wanting to see our countries cooperate. everybody agrees that would be better. why do you think relationsh relationships -- why do you think the relationship between our two countries as deteriorated to this point? and what part of it -- what responsibility is russia willing to take for that? >> first you say i don't

understand why russia should take any responsibility. you see that when we dance, it means that we both party are responsible. >> i was thinking it takes two to tango. >> it's very important that we have proven that we have interest, we have our position on various issues. middle east, you say that a dpu years ago, russia has decided to help countries who are fighting against various. i would like to emphasize that we came to see fight against terrorism. and at that time, 95% were seized by terrorist. now i don't know, maybe 5 prts showed territory is still under a the occupation of daesch. >> the criticism is russian is aligned with assad. >> it's a game, it's not exactly

what i mean. we decided to help asad to defeat daesch. >> but assad goes after his political opponents and crushes them >> we don't want to interfere into civil war in syria. as you know, we started to stop fearing, to cease-fire in syria and by the way, we succeeded. we launched sochi process and we organized a meeting. it's a lot of positions participated in that event. and we have emphasized that the main purpose for us, to get together, to concentrate our efforts now in geneva. after the break, part three of savannah guthrie's exclusive interview. savannah surprises the ambassador with a bit of breaking news. and with godaddy,

i've made my ideas real. ♪ ♪ i made my own way, now it's time to make yours. ♪ ♪ everything is working, working, just like it should ♪

. >> we're back now with the final section of the exclusive interview. savannah got word of a breaking story and kaulcaught the ambass off-guard. it just came in. >> but i didn't know. >> i know --

>> you want to put me on the spot. >> i don't want to do that at all. but i'll ask you because maybe you'll know something about it. >> i just come from lunch. >> this is about the phone call. it's not about lunch. two officials said that president trump told president pew ten during that phone call last week, if you want to have an arm's race, we can do that, but i'll win." did that happen? >> again, it is not correct. it's not polite from my side to reveal all issues that our two presidents mentioned. but i just would like to say to you, if i can, that our president raised an, shoe arms race and there was intention to discus this issue when they meet. >> but it did come up, this idea of an arms race i the phone call. >> of course. >> did you know what president

trump said to president putin. >> i explain to you. first it's not polite to review details. the second, i would like to reject -- you say that i have been crossing my red lines because it's not polite. and you say that as you know, it's not correct for diplomats to reveal such cop level conversation. as to me, as i mentioned, i was ahead of russian delegation on strategic treaties and strategic arms. it's very important for us to decide whats will in the future, what we will do with this treaty. just only a few years and this treaty expires. it's very important for us. >> indeed. thank you.

>> was thank you for joining us for this nbc news exclusive interview with russian ambassador anatoli antinov. stay with us. "hardball" with chris matthews" is coming up next.

>> getting colder? let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. there's new signs tonight that the already strained relation shich between the united states and russia is reaching a combustible new phase. those commences are now it issing president trump and the man he's steadily refused to criticize. after the u.s. expelled 60

diplomats on sunday, russian retaliated. then hours later in a conspicuous show of force, the kremlin test launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile this morning. it is said to be capable of delivering up to 15 nuclear warheads. putin claims the weapons is impervious to american defenses. all of this sparked by the unprecedented chemical attack by a former russian spy and his daughter on british soil, an attack the u.s. and uk blame on russia. despite russia's prove kags that date black to the russian election, the new ambassador says that both countries are to blame. >> why do you think the relationship between our two countries has deteriorated to this point. and what part of it -- what responsibility is russia willing toake for that? >> first, you say i don't understand why russia should

take any responsibility. you see that both parties are responsible. it seems atmosphere in washington is poison. it's a toxic, i must fear. i made a joke, it was my press secretary saying that today russia is responsible for everything, even for bad weather. it's high time for us to stop claiming each other. now nbc news reports the former spy was on a kremlin hit list along with seven other targets, this according to another former russian agent living in the uk who spoke with richard engle in an interview. he said it includes the name of christopher steele, the former british intelligence officer who blew the whistle on russian meddling in 2016. for more, i'm joaned now by the author of that report.

he's in suls bury, england, where the poisoning occurred. thank you all for being with us. richard, let me start with you. the idea that this assassination attempt, part of a hit list. what can you tell us about that 12 1234. >> it's certainly plausible according to a former intelligence official particular with russia and russian tactics. i can tell you the poisoning that happened here in also bury, said to chill down t russian community living in this country. the uk has been something of a magnet for russian dissidents, for critics of vladimir putin and frachkly for skies who have changed their future, concerned for their lives.

and one of them said that in february, he received a call from someone on the inside. we have no way to verify he received that call. we weren't on call. he described that he was on this call, that he got a tipoff his name was on a hit list that steele and skripal was on the hit list and that he became deeply concerned when a short time after that, skripal was found in a state of paralysis on a park bench not far from where i am right now. >> you're being told seven people supposedly on had list including steele, five others. any sense who they might be if these are all connected, all sort of individual isolated cases? what else do you know about it? >> one of the other prominent names on the list was a businessman named bill browder. i've interviewed him before. he says he knows the russians want him, that the kremlin wants him dead he thinks. said that this is no -- he told me specifically if something ever bad happens to me, everyone should know who did it.

he means the kremlin. so that his name was on it and other people who russia considers -- who the kremlin considered traitors. >> nina khrushchev, poisonings on foreign soil, this is missile test that russia launched today putin saying impervious to american defenses shutting down con is sue lats. spies kicked out of this country. a lot of people's minds we read about, saw, witnessed during the cold war. when you look anhe present momentthe state of relations between the two countries how do they sta up? >> it's very cold warrish. i'm constantly confronted with the watcthought i'ng something from the spy who came in from the cold and reading john la ca ray. it's developing in front of our eyes. it's a very chilling reality and it is a possibility that there is a hit list.

i wouldn't imagine that there's anything in writing because no good kremlin would leave something like that in writing. putin doesn't like his enemies. we know that he has a very long memory trained by the kgb in a kgb universe, a traitor is a traitor and needs to be punished at any cost. >> if there is a hit list, is there anything more to it, anything more to be read into it the fact not only that he wants to settle a score or whatever, but that he's willing to do it on foreign soil in this moment? >> well, i think what he's doing, they're using an opportunity. from what i know the way kgb functions it's not even the kgb, it's a gru, military intelligence. there is an opportunity and they do it. it can be anywhere. whatever the opportunity presents itself. this is something that needs to be considered and for them, the world is the limit. so that is a possibility. but i also think that in some ways the combination of things may not necessarily -- and i'm

almost sure that it's not by putin's making, it's all of the stars collided in this one thing and suddenly we're talking about not just about the poisoning or the new testing, it the missile is called satan 2, quite appropriate, exactly. and all these other things and the election happened in russia. i think it's one of those very big waves. the question is whether russia or the united states would get out of that wave and turn into some sort of road that they can be some conversation happening. > that brings to us the question of the leadership in this country, the recent escalation with russia, also testing president trump who since becoming a candidate for president expressed admiration for putin. while he's shown a reluctance to criticize him for his actions, trump's tougher line in recent days even caught u.s. allies off guard. as one russia scholar said, the president's heart doesn't seem to be in it but for whatever reason, he's willing to go along

with his advisers. trump's public silence about his shift in policy may stem from his continued desire for closer relations with putin and taking a more aggressive stance on ukraine, the president told his aides not to the it out his decision. doing so he argued might agitate putin. peter baker, the accusation against trump has been that he's soft on putin and has some kind of admiration for putin that would have a policy ramification as president. now we've seen this week kicking out five dozen spies from u.s. soil and a couple months ago, we're talking about the policy in ukraine, sending anti-tank equipment, missiles over there to ukraine. that's a step even the obama administration didn't take. how can we square their posture in terms of policy from trump with that refusal to publicly say much about putin. >> that's the central mystery right now about this administration when it comes to russia.

you do see a hardening line. our reporting shows before secretary of state rex tillerson was fired he came to the conclusion that the attempt to cooperate with putin's kremlin wasn't working. they should take a new approach that would involve more active measures like sanctions which we saw imposed in retaliation finally for the 2016 meddling in the campaign. and then obviously, this action this week in terms of the expulsions. you're right the president chooses not to say anything about it publicly. he doesn't wanto alienate president putin. there's a reluctance on his part to in effect validate critics who are saying how come you don't say anything tougher on putin. he doesn't like this whole investigation that dogs him and insists the notion of collusion during the campaign was a hoax

and therefore, he doesn't want to give in to critics. it does create this you can you duality of policy where they're willing to throw out more diplomats than at any point and yet the president of the united states remains silent. >> richard engel, what do you know from are the standpoint of russia and putin these actions -- it was a couple months ago with the missiles to ukraine but this week kicking out dozens of spies from the u.s. did putin, was he expecting that? did he think this might happen? did that catch him off guard? does he feel maybe he's misread trump in some way? >> it's hard to know what's going on inside putin's mind inside the kremlin. i think we have a good sense of why there was this international outburst and this international flurry. diplomatic activity expelling russian diplomats from a couple dozen countries. i think it was about the precedent.

this was not just some enemy of the kremlin who was assassinated. this man or attempted to be assassinated. this man wasn't strangled or pushed out a window. he was exposed and his daughter to a military grade nerve agent in a small city where i am right now in england. two people were seen on a bench frozen solid foaming at the mouth. that is not something that people can ignore. and there was a deep concern among european officials, certainly among british officials and probably american officials, as well unless some sort of line was drawn in the sand, this could be replicated. >> nina, on that question of whether this posture shift from the united states if you want to call it that, has caught putin off guard, you sd no to that? >> i don't think so. i think he didn't expect probably 23 countries to do that and most of european uon including georgia which was former soviet republic and has been recently having good

relationship. but i think he is preparing himself. i think the game is on.

but not going quietly. shulkin accusing the trump administration in its political appointees within the va of conspiring against him and his management with the goal of privatizing the va. shulkin also told chris hayes he

spoke with president trump just hours before he was fired. >> when is the last time you spoke to him? >> i spoke to the president yesterday. >> what was that conversation like? >> we spoke about the progress that i was making, what i needed to do from a policy perspective to make sure that we were fixing the issues in va. >> wait, that's before you were fired? >> that's correct. >> you spoke to him. he made no mention of the fact that he was about to terminate you? >> that's correct. >> and then you found out via tweet? >> right before that, the chief of staff kelly gave me a call which i appreciated, gave me a heads-up. and so -- but that was much after the phone call. >> white house staff are now playing catchup in defending shulkin's would be successor, ronny jackson after being blind sided by trump's announcement. they planned to announce wednesday that ed leave the administration and be replaced by robert wile at the defense department until a nominee was found but trump preempted the plan when he tweeted he intended to nominate jackson. michelle goldberg is a columnist

for the "new york times," noelle, nikpour, a republican strategist and from news day. not surprisingly, i don't have a good idea of what happened here and why it happened. there's a couple of theorys and suggestions out there. shulkin saying look, this was about a scheme to privatize the va. you had this scathing inspector general's report sitting out there about shulkin and the cost of his trip to europe with his wife. you've got that. you've got trump's tendency to make sporadic decisions. was this more about shulkin or more about trump wanting jackson? >> it's hard to discern what it's actually about. we have a sense the white house aides are not ready to answer all the questions about ronny jackson and his qualifications. he's a doctor and active duty member of the armed forces. what qualifies him to run a troubled and large agency. where does he stand on privatizing health care for veterans. >> it does seem, michelle, in some ways this is consistent

with what we know about trump and his style. in other ways putting it somebody like jackson forward seems like the sole qualification we've seen is what he did on television. >> trump also wanted to hire his pilot to head the faa. this is somebody who has kind of contempt for governing experience, makes snap decisions and really could care less about qualifications. i think one of the stories so far has been that the federal government has morse or less sort of held together despite having this chaotic incompetent team an the top. and we're going to see over the coming years the corruption and incompetence trickle down in a way that starts to affect people's lives because although ronny jackson is kind of universally beloved by people in the white house, it is crazy to move somebody from managing a team of dozens to managing the second biggest agency in the u.s. government. it's just madness. >> do you think republicans --

he has to get confirmed by the is that the. republicans have the votes there. do you think they'll all be on board with this. >> probably so if the president wants him, probably so. they have recently become friends. we don't know what kind of private conversations that trump and jackson have had. because i can tell you one thing, i do not there that trump would have appointed this if jackson and he did not speak of this, if he didn't say something about the va. i don't think it blind sided jackson. i think they said they've been close in recent times. that they've been speakingi think what happened is i think that he is has discussed something with jackson. i think jackson gave him a few ideas about the va and what he would do. i bet five bucks that can what ended up happening is he thought you know what? this guy could touch around the va and he's there. >> i bet a thousand dollars that

trump does not -- that they have not had substantive policy conversations about what should happen at the va should it be privatized? how should it be reorganized. to the depths of my soul i'm positive that is not what went on there. >> it does feel like there's asymmetry and the trump campaign for president. the trump message in 2016 was the ones who you think are supposed to have all these important positions screwed the country up. let me the total outsider come in. >> it was also i will hire the best people, not a bunch of kind of crohnies and fox news. >> did it mean the best credentialed people or the people i in my gut think are the best. >> the people he in his gut are the people he thinks look good on television. >> i'm going to push back on that.

the reason why is because he won this campaign and beat out 16 people that were very qualified. he beat out bush, he beat out a ted cruz, marco rubio. look at the whole line of people he beat out. did he this really by putting his own motley crue together. kellyanne conway, look how many times he changed people on his caai over d over a over again. ally donaltrumhad the credit for the winning team strategy to get where he was. so he feels like that he can have a strategy for the white house. >> the fact that he managed to eke his way out to a freak minority victory does not mean this kind of crazy

we're back with the "hardball" roundtable. michelle, tell me something i don't know. >> a woman in texas has just

been sentenced to five years for voting when she was on parole and she didn't realize that she wasn't able to vote. and her ballot was caught before it even went through. she's now going to prison for five years after just serving a three-year sentence for tax fraud and is now going to be separated from her children again. >> noel. >> i have a prediction. my prediction is that cynthia nixon will totally beat out cuomo in the primary. we're going to see a woman. >> that's the republican dream in new york state, isn't it. >> yes. >> how do you win an election? we'll see. sometimes be careful what you wish for. emily. >> news day is all over the coverage of the federal corruption trial and a lot of big names have come up. one is a nassau county chairman but also trump's nominee to be ambassador to turks and cake yoes. you can expect the allegation he got a $25,000 discount for a

wedding for his daughter made by a restaurateur who pleaded guilty to bribing other officials. he denied any wrongdoing and there's no evidence that he got anything in exchange.

>> but in the we hours of a winter night --