mean? it means that ukrainian forces should go there. the second thing they propose is closing the border between russia and ukraine. and third, elections should be held in three months after these two steps are taken. you don't need to be an attorney, have a special education, to know that has nothing to do with the minsk agreements. what additional commitments could russia shoulder, i think everything is understandable. just like the united states carries out exercises on their territory, we are carrying out exercises. we didn't carry out exercises bringing our equipment to the

united states. regrettably the united states is doing that now. that's why the concern should not be with russia, but the united states. we talked about that during our talks. we clarified our positions. turning to the opposition and the citizen you mentioned. this person knew that he was breaching the laws effective in russia. he should have note that had as a person who was convicted two times. i would like to underscore that he deliberately ignored the laws. this person went abroad for treatment. and he didn't register with the authorities. and he went to hospital and recorded a video posting it on the internet. and then that requirement, he

didn't appear, ignored the laws. he knew he was then being investigated and he came back deliberately. he did what he wanted to do. what can you say? as for people of opposition, regrettably, the chairman of the conference doesn't allow for us to get into this in-depth. i am not going to say anything complicated. it will be clearly understandable. if you can relay subjectively to your viewers and audience, i will be grateful to you. the united states has announced that russia is its enemy, adversary, congress did that in 2017. 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 needs to support political organizations. that is enshrined in american law -- u.s. law. now let's ask a question. if russia is an enemy, then what organizations will support america in russia? i don't think the ones strengthening the russian federation will do that. that is the objective of the united states, publicly stated objective. organizing people who are promoting the implementation of american policy towards russia. how should we feel about that? i think it's clear that we

should be cautious about it, but we are going to operate exclusively within the confines of russian law. give mr. reuben the microphone. we have heard that the american side has constantly had some rhetoric about political prisoners in russia. was that discussed with navalny, with biden. >> all of this started off with a crude remark by biden. what do you think? >> president biden spoke about human rights.

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

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

let's say it was a mistake. that happens, too. from drones or helicopters. clearly civilians were killed in iraq. what is that? who takes responsibility for that or who is the killer? or for human rights. guantanamo is still operating now. it is not in the course of anything, not american law or national law or anything, but it still exists. prisons opened in various countries where torture was applied. is that abuse of human rights? i don't think so. people sitting here would they say protecting human rights, that's policy.

based on these practices we understand that this is done and has continued to be done. it's being done by people who are getting money from abroad -- there are some people getting money from abroad. let's continue. >> one question about the arctic. you said you talked about that for a long time. the u.s. has accused russia of militarizing that. we heard from secretary blinken. what did you talk about? >> we talked about that in-depth and detail. that's an important and interesting question. as for the arctic, the northern passage, it's extremely

interesting for a number of countries economically speaking. as for the concerns of militarization of americans about the arctic, they are completely unfounded. we are not doing anything that wasn't happening during the soviet union. we are establishing an infrastructure that was destroyed. we are doing that at the military level. and includes conservation. we are creating bases in order to save people in the sea if it comes to that, god for bid. and also to protect our environment. what i told our colleagues, i don't see concerns. i am firmly convinced we can and should cooperate. russia and the u.s. are one of eight members of the arctic

council. russia is chairing that this year. more over, between alaska, there is a well-known strait. one is russia and the other is united states. all of this should spur us to join our efforts. the situation regarding the use of northern passage is governed by international law, by two basic laws. the convention on the law of the sea of 1982 i believe it is. and the polar code of conduct which consists of a number of documents ratified in 2017. i pointed out something to our partners, 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 in exploring the northern passage. due to climate change, this situation is changing. and we also have new ice breaking ships there. they are the most powerful in the world in russia. that's why we definitely need to work in this area. it was drawn up because it describes the legal. specifically, internal seas and territorial seas and seas that belong to a country, exclusive economic areas, and the free open seas.

internal seas, those are the seas that are within the territory of the country that you have territorial waters, 12 sea miles. and then you have other categories in the territorial seas. military ships can go. as far as the internal seas, there is a particular issue and we are not opposing anybody there. in internal seas, just so you know, i believe there are five total, five gulfs or bays maybe they are called. there are almost 1,000 nautical miles.

this is a sovereign right to either let ships go through there or not, but we are not abusing that rule. we are providing it to anybody who wants. there were around 1,000 applications last year i think. some are under russian flags. and our regulatory plans would be polar for the conduct which has for ships. if all of us together, all countries, including members of the arctic council, if all of us are interested in tackling these issues, there are some areas we can continue to work. i don't see any problems that we cannot tackle.

ntv please. >> good afternoon, mr. putin. good relations, at least not poor relations, between america and russia were always the gaurntor. now you talk about respect. before the talks you talk about red lines. americans have some red lines. during the talks were you able to reach some agreements about not crossing the red lines in all areas? is that something that would improve the relations or destabilize the relations? >> i can say on a whole we stand with our american partners. they understood what we were saying. i mean when we are talking about

red lines. but i have to be frank, of course we didn't get to the point we were talking in-depth about where the line would be drawn. we talked about work on cybersecurity, stability. i think during these consultations -- incidentally, also all of this should be discussed, and i hope that we can agree upon it. i am including arctic matters on it, too. abc news, our american branch. >> mr. president, thank you so much for taking my question. president biden had said that he would respond if cyber attacks from russia do not stop. i am curious, what did he tell you? did he make any threats? and a quick follow up, the list

of your political opponents who are dead, imprisoned or jailed is long. alexi navalny has called for fair elections. but they are outlawed and he is jailed. so my question, what are you so afraid of? >> once more, let me reiterate what was already said about various so-called foreign agents. and about people who are positioning themselves as being nonsystemic opposition. i answered your colleague from cnn. but this is the law so i have to answer your question. i will do it again. the united states has adopted a

law in accordance of which the u.s. has said that they will support various political organizations in russia. at the same time they made an announcement that the russian federation is an enemy. they have spoken publicly saying they will restrain the development of russia. here is a question. what political organizations of the united states and other members of the western community, which organizations should be supported in russia? we are just like the americans did back in the '30s, we call them foreign agents. they are not prohibited from working. they don't need to stop operating. if they are extremist, that is

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

happen. some fears has nothing to do with anything. >> you didn't answer my question, sir. if all of your political opponents are dead, in prison, poisoned, doesn't that send a message that you do not want a fair political fight? >> ask her who is killing whom and throwing whom in jail. people came to u.s. congress with political demands. over 400 people and they are face prison sentences of up to 20, maybe even 25 years. they are being called domestic terrorists. they are being accused of a number of other claims. some were arrested right away after the events and 30 are

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

american prisons? >> we talked about it. president biden raised that question. the question about american citizens in russian prisons. there could be some compromise. the russian ministry and the u.s. state department will be working on it. >> you said you discussed trade with mr. biden. that's probably the most positive thing, that business from both ends are interested in development. >> thank you. it doesn't depend on us. it depends on the americans. we haven't leveled any restrictions. i think after some restrictions were introduced in the economy

and in commerce, i think that was done more by russia. it did affect some of our development, but the u.s. is carrying out their task of restraining russia, but they didn't have any critical effect. that's number one. number two, this has to do with the interest of american businesses. 200 people -- the biggest allegation of americans, an american allegation, the delegation was at the st. petersburg economic forum. some restrictions were entered to american countries. due to that american countries have lost out. they have given up the business into hands of competitors. we talked about what for. there is no practical reason, but there are losses.

as for our trade with the u.s., i think there is $28 billion. increased by the first quarter of this year. if that continues, i think that would benefit everybody. >> sure, let's have a couple questions. the lady, please. >> mr. president, thank you very much for affording me the opportunity to ask you a question. a few years ago you met president biden. that was when he was vice president. what he said was that he looked you in the eye and he said that he didn't see a soul. and you said that means we understand one another.

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

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

and the relationship is a pragmatic one primarily. please? >> mr. putin, based on the outcome of this meeting, did you have any new -- are there any new illusions? >> i didn't have any old ones. >> how about new ones? >> there are not any new ones. >> over here. please. give her the microphone. >> hello. mr. putin, a question about global climate change. did you speak with president biden about that. and the second question is about american media. recently you gave a big

interview to nbc. do you think it is fair to give the american president -- did you think it's fair to give media interview to the american media when it doesn't happen the other way around? and how do you feel about always having your words distorted? >> about the distortion or sound of things, well, that is the practice in international relations today. what can you do? can't do anything about it. we have gotten used to that a long time ago. we are all living with it. we have been living with it for decades. as for giving an interview, that decision is taken by the relevant leaders of countries. if they want to convey something

in addition to people, well, then we try to do that. i gave an interview to the american press and that's what i was trying to do there. as for the activities of our mass media in general, president biden raised the question about freedom, about the freedom of europe and russia. rather, radio free europe which we call a foreign agent. before that there were other media outlets. there is also a media outlet working abroad and before that the united states called sputnik a foreign agent. and what we did, we did in

response to the voice of america. this is done -- registration, et cetera. a lot of problems have been created for our personnel with money transfers and that sort of thing. we don't have that kind of a problem. for american medias, the american media hasn't complied with all of the elements of russia law. i think we can work through the ministry of foreign affairs to resolve others. over here. >> thank you very much. we all saw you shake joe biden's hand at the very beginning. here is my question. were you able to bring mutual understanding and trust to a

different level with the president of the united states? do you think it's realistic at this juncture to have a new level of relations? were they absolutely clear and transparent and will there be understanding where both countries want to go to? >> in life there is only the specter of happiness. in this situation there is not family based trust. i think there was some specter of trust that we caught a glimpse of. please, microphone. you want a second one. >> the coronavirus is one of the most important issues on the planet. was this issue discussed with the american president? and if so, what were the pros

pekts of joint work with the americans and did you talk about regulation of vaccines? >> we did talk about that, but only touched on it tangentially. we answered a request by the americans to send our equipment as humanitarian assistance. america is a big, powerful country. it is not that they don't have money. at that point they really needed our equipment and we did it and did it free of charge. we are prepared to continue cooperation on those lines in the future, but we didn't talk about it in general -- rather we didn't talk about it in detail. >> to president trump, after those meetings, the relation between the two countries deteriorated further. is there any indication that will happen again? did we reach a low point from the u.s. that we can push off

from and go up? >> that's difficult to say. that's because all of the activities that have to do with injuring the relations were not done by us. please? >> i'm not sure if you know, but our team won. congratulations. >> congratulations. >> the second question. the americans, before coming to geneva, they kept on saying we are going to put pressure on putin, put pressure on russia. did you feel that pressure and

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

substantive, concrete. and it took place in an atmosphere that was geared towards achieving results. first and foremost, the specter of trust we talked about. bbc news, go ahead. >> joe biden talks about stable, predickable relations with russia. are you prepared to announce unpredictability for the sake of improving relations with the west? thank you. >> i envy for the level of

artistry you have achieved here. as for the first question, do you think, and the second -- the first question west considers and are you prepared to announce it. just because the west believes it's the case doesn't mean it is the case. you said the west believes that russia's foreign policy is unpredictable. let me answer that. when the u.s. existed the abm treaty for no reason, why did they do that? that had an effect on the stability. and now imf. what is stable about that? nothing stable about that. withdrawal from the open skies treaty. there is practically nothing left. luckily, joe biden is addressing the area of strategic stability,

he has made a sound decision to extend the star treaty. let's take the situation surrounding ukraine and crimea. everybody is dancing around that. what is stable that a state coup de tat happened. was he prepared to leave power due to elections? no. it led to a bloody coup de tat in east ukraine. you think we are unpredictable. i don't think so. we are acting appropriately to counter threats emerging against us. for a situation to be truly stable we need to reach an

agreement on rules of conduct in all of the areas we talked about, cybersecurity, tackling issues that have to do with conflict. i think we can reach agreement on everything. at least today, based on my meeting with mr. biden. >> are we singing songs now? blue fog? our colleagues won't understand that reference. let's give the floor to one of the foreign outlets, bloomberg. >> 2016 mr. trump, after that sanctions were adopted and

adopted quickly. did you talk with joe biden about the guarantees you would have for the sanctions to be lifted, rather for new sanctions not to be introduced against russia. you said there is some incipient hope. with regard to biden, you mentioned some initial agreements. do you have more trust that you will be able to do it because it's believed that the american administration has more solidarity with the american president than was the case during donald trump's term. you talked about cybersecurity. you had consultations on ukraine. i wasn't sure. was there a working group on cybersecurity? and you talked about red lines. did you layout red lines

specifically? >> let's turn to the red lines. i have already addressed that many times. the understanding arises during negotiations on key areas of interaction. it makes no sense to try to scare one another. when people sit down at a negotiating table in order to establish relations, not to intimidate each other. as for sanctions, i have already said we don't know what the policy mood is like over there. we know the general situation, but we can't say in detail. there is some who are against russian development and some who are proponents of it. it is difficult to say which side is prevailing. but if after our meeting, some steps are taken, the ones that were called in 2016, what will that mean? that will mean we lost the

latest opportunity. please. one final question for the journalist from canada. >> you said to a couple of my colleagues you wanted unbias -- do you hear me now? are you sure? >> there is no interpretation. i can't hear it. >> i will try and repeat. >> maybe we will try on a different channel. no, i can't hear anything. can't hear anything whatsoever. one second.

>> thank you. you said to a couple of my colleagues you wanted unbiased, fair questions. i have a fair question for you. it comes from my 9-year-old daughter who asked me before i left to come here, what is the big deal with the summit. it is a complicated answer for a 9-year-old. in your own words, mr. president, why is this relationship so complicated. also, she would like to know, and i would like to know, why are young people not allowed to protest in russia. >> yes, that's great that your 9-year-old daughter is interested in these questions. the answer is very simple. you need to look around yourself. you need to see how beautiful the world is.

and adults, leaders of two countries, the biggest nuclear power, are meeting in order to make the world safer and more viable. and a place at home for everyone to flourish, everyone who live on our planet. they are addressing issues dealing with a terrible weapon and it needs to be limited and drawing up rules on refraining from using those weapons. they talked about protecting the environment, about rivers being clean, about seas being clean, about there not being any floods and droughts, about providing food for everyone on the planet, about health care so when children grow up, they get sick less often and have the

opportunity to study. and they have the opportunity to look at the future confidently and i hope at our meeting, i hope that you will cover our meeting based on those considerations in particular. thank you for your attention. the best. >> russian president vladimir putin taking questions from the press. president biden expected to hold his own conference within minutes. the two men spending much less time together than expected. i am andrea mitchell joined by chuck todd and casey hunt. they met for just under two hours. after a 43-minute break, an expanded meeting with their own advisers lasting only one hour.

that, according to our experts, was less than anyone anticipated. ben rhodes joins us as well. he knows well the playbook of the putin summit. and keir who just interviewed president putin for 90 minutes that lasted as long as the summit. first to chuck. your immediate take away from this. from my notes, one of the most remarkable moments was describing president bind as constructive, balanced, talking about his family, mom. i'm paraphrasing. showed the extent of his moral values and that is attractive. we spoke the same moral language on a constructive summit.

and they did not invite each other to each other's capital because they are not ready for that. >> it struck me as a choose your own venture what you took away. what version of president biden does he choose to take away from putin. we are trying to create regular order to this. but at the same time he was filled with this what about-ism. he compares the killing of political folks to january 6. i think we will know what kind of posture we want to have with the russians. what of the biden folks -- what

of the remarks do the biden folks want to respond on. it's clear he wants a constructive relationship with the president and be defiant about the accusations we have made against him. physically, he got the most animated when talking about ukraine which i thought was quite a tell. >> chuck, to all of those points, now joe biden coming second has to choose what to focus on. on putin's blatant denial on cyber attacks or on going forward. casey? >> one moment that stood out to me, the implication of january 6. what happened here at the united states capitol down from where we are sitting. especially when you talk about putin saying there are shared values between him and joe biden. the january 6 answer was in

response to a question about him jailing his political rivals, jalg them, killing them, poisoning them. strong questions from the journalist in the room and he said the police shot the woman at the capital trying to express her views. that was ashley babbitt trying to wiggle into the white house. he was asked about it, whether he needed to reassure our allies as well. clearly, as chuck underscored, putin has created his own version of reality and throwing it out there. i was reminded of the former american president in this conference as he rambles on.

>> he enjoys the spotlight. >> revels in it. >> president biden said he wasn't going to have a joint press conference because this was not a sporting event. let me bring in ben rhodes. ben, you have sat across the table from vladimir putin. you sat with president obama and heard the reaction. what we saw today was classic putin, was it not? >> 100%. i have heard a lot of what-abouts myself. clearly what vladimir putin wanted to convey is that everything is normal. everything is normalized. i am a super power on equal footing with the united states, that's why we are having this summit. and our experts will work it out. the problem is he completely

denies anything. no responsibility for annexing crimea. no responsibility for the fact that his political opposition is getting poisoned and thrown in prison and smashed in brutal ways. he wants to pretend it's not happening or is no different than what happens in the united states. i think president biden needs to answer that. president trump was willing to accept donald trump's version of reality. my guess is that in that summit president biden was much firmer in calling out those type of behaviors. the fact that it was a short summit was that they weren't trying to negotiate the details of these, but lay down their

markers and move forward. on one hand he wants to stop the escalation with raus yeah. does want to have a dialogue about ukraine and cybersecurity ignore the fact that putin is describing a matter that doesn't exist. and he on a matter of foreign policy has been on offense seeking to assault and undermine american democracy and our al lines. biden's going to have to walk that line now and it's going to be difficult. >> hey, keir simmons -- >> i just want to check -- let me just say -- they've just released a joint statement. i just want to say it's not unexpected. but they're going to have a join group to work on strategic arms, consistent with their goals. through this dialogue, we seek to lay the groundwork for further arms control and risk measurement. that is one that's come out, as well as sending the ambassadors back. chuck, sorry i interrupted.

>> no, no worries. it shows you just how basic, i think, of very small little progress that came out of this summit, which is, okay, the ambassadors can be ambassadors again. but keir simmons, look, you just spent a lot of time one-on-one with vladimir putin. we're watching his performance. who is he talking to? his performance art, is it for a domestic audience? or did he revel in sort of being an international pariah, in sort of almost like embracing the role a little bit? who is he talking to when he does this little performative theater that he does? >> reporter: chuck, i think the domestic audience and the international audience, obviously, i think the first point for him is that the attention has value. because it is russia on the world stage. you can never forget one of his -- one of the basic tenets of his world view is that after the class of soviet union,

russia lost prestige. his job is to recover prestige for russia now. i think that joint statement, andrew, is worth mentioning. it is worth mentioning because it does focus on nuclear talks. let's never forget, i know we don't, the u.s. and russia have thousands of nuclear missiles. and anything that can be done to put in guard rails and lessen the threat of a nuclear war is worth doing. that said, i think ben rhodes is right. listen, we never expected that president biden would change president putin at this summit. and he hasn't. president putin there was the same president putin you've seen many times. deny everything, offer to negotiate. but when you offer to negotiate, don't promise anything. just say, yeah, we're prepared to talk. agreeing that the u.s. ambassador can come back to moscow, and the russian ambassador can go to washington, as we've seen saying every day

is pretty baseline in terms what is agreed. everything else is in threat of talks, the agency on strategic civility, to start consultation on cyber security, i mean these things are talks. and also on, of course, that crucial issue of the americans trevor reed. so saying, we might be able to do something. here's the thing, we're not going to learn from president putin's news conference very much about what the future is. i think that will be clear, as the future unfolds. and as we hear from president biden. >> and, to chuck and kasie and keir, we're expecting president biden very soon. just very quickly joining us here right now is mike mcfaul, the former ambassador to russia. chuck, maybe you want to ask ambassador mcfaul for his media takeaway. >> well, you know, mike, it was, many ways, i heard what ben

said. and that's the thing, everything putin said i feel like you told us in advance how this would go. so, i guess would you be telling president biden to do in his press conference? the balance to strike in both on one hand, embracing the idea that putin wants to have a constructive relationship on certain things, particularly treaties s.t.a.r.t. but he's in full denial about his responsibility on so many other things, but particularly, cyber. what public messaging, what diplomatic messaging would be you advising the president to say in this moment, as he prepares for his presser? >> well, two things, chuck. one, he should affirm that they support the strategic stability talks that's a good point. and put a joint statement out, that's a positive step. but i think he has a lot of work to do in his press conference now. he's got to rebutt a lot of what

about-ism, that we heard from president putin. he was going on and on. he was having a grand time. he asked everybody a question, and that means because he was doing all of his familiar talking points. so i think that puts the burden now on president biden to say that he disagree with that what about-ism and that false equivalency. >> and mike mcfaul, i mean look at the lack of balance here. putin comes out and praising president biden and he's talking about the unpredictable relationship as you predicted he might do. now if president biden comes out and says, wait a second, he denies trying to assassinating navalny and being assaulted in germany, attempted to be killed

by the kremlin and all of those risks. that puts prd bn in a tough position. >> i agree. there's not a lot of tangible things here. they agreed to begin talks it about talks. they didn't actually launch strategic talks. that means when he gets into the press conference, he's got to be firm and say i disagree with all of the things that vladimir putin said. i hope he said it in the meeting but he most certainly has to say it to the world. >> kasie hunt. >> mr. ambassador, if you're the president and advising him, what do you say happened on january 6th, vladimir putin, we've heard remarks from what happened on that day, should the president

address that in his news conference? or is it better that he not? >> i think he should address it for national security reasons, right? i'll leave the domestic policy issues to you, the experts. but he made a falsity. he compared alexei navalny who was fighting corruption and then poisoned and he didn't commit any crimes. he compared alexei navalny. he's fighting for democracy. those who stormed the capitol were against democracy. i think he needs to rebutt that false equivalency. >> and andrea taylor joins us now, i wonder what you think he said. >> i agree what he said, the

what about-ism was tremendous. that's exactly why president biden agreed not to do a joint press conference in the first place. president putin was basically having this narrative about the failure of u.s. democracy, right? so president putin sees democracy as a thinly veiled attempt for the united states to spreads his influence and he sees it as a threat to his power. so he's trying to communicate that on the international stage. now, i do think it's up to president biden to come out and to defend u.s. democracy. one of his primary initiatives is to rebuild u.s. democracy and being able to show not just americans but the world, that democracy delivers. i think that's a key message he's likely to have in his press conference, to push back and rebut all of these attempts by president putin to undermine democracy and the way the world sees democracy. >> it's interesting, he almost basically explained why he

thought it was okay to help trump in 2016, why he got involved in the election in 2016, he knew response, america got involved with my politics, fine. you're with my opponents, hillary clinton and barack obama, i'm going to be with your opponents there. that was his rationalization. >> let me ask you a simple question, did biden make a mistake by going second or was it smart? there's this debate, spinning everything, what would you have counseled if they had asked you? >> yeah, i think it's smart to go second. he gets the last wording right? he can do the record-setting where he thinks it's appropriate. and he can leave the world the message with a more positive outlook. and i think it's important for president biden to put the ball in putin's court. we all have low expectations for the summit. now we're looking to see where things go. it was as president putin liked to remind the world that this meeting came at president

biden's invitation but now the ball is in putin's court. so president biden has shown his willingness to engage putin where he can. and i think if we don't see any reciprocity, if putin doesn't want for play then this mix that president biden has offered is going to have to skew much more heavily towards the confrontation side so he gets the last word. >> stick with us, andrea, as we await president biden, he's set to begin his press conference in a few minutes. we're at the top of the hour. we've been discussing what will president putin said in his press conference. he spent a lot of time doing what about-isms, denying, deflecting any criticism going his way. but trying to create the condition saying, hey, we're creating a stable situation with president biden. let me bring in mike memoli, of course, traveling with the president. mike, i'm curious, i know you've been