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 doing some reporting as

putin's press conference was going on. what's your sense of the balance they're going to strike with trying to sort of -- how much they respond directly to some of the outrageous things that putin said? and how much that they plan to sort of embrace that small sort of olive branch that putin offered which is to say, hey, we're starting a predictable relationship? >> well, you used the word "predictable." that was certainly president biden's goal and what the house repeatedly talked about their goal, to bring stability and predictability to this relationship. certainly, listening to your panel there, there's certainly things that they feel president biden needs to respond to. but on the whole it is certainly what putin did, let's say on the acceptable range of predictable. it was not meant to distort the substance of the meeting here but it's the same rhetoric that

we're hearing from president putin about what to do, what about-ism, covering trump in the campaign, then asked to respond to president trump. if they sort of follow the same blueprint that they operated with the former president. there are times where you proactively engage in something that trump said. there were times in which they would hold their fire until asked about it. and then there were times that they felt it was best to simply ignore it. based on some of the things we heard from putin, i bet they're weighing the range of responses based on what they think merits response or not. on the balance, look at what putin said about this meeting. >> yeah. >> he was generally, i think, praising it on being a good conversation, constructive talks. eye look at the joint statement that andrea references, it focuses entirely on new s.t.a.r.t. joe biden the former senator on the senate relations committee

devoted so much of his time in the '80s on nuclear proliferation. that's the area where there is perhaps the most agreement on cooperation. they're watching this largely favorable term -- >> mike, i've got to -- i mean, the cyberdenials, i mean, it just proved -- >> yeah, yeah. >> -- we're not even at square one yet, right? the first step is to admit you have a problem. and vladimir putin will not admit that russia is the same harbor for these folks? he won't even admit these folks -- it's happening in this country. it sounds like we made zero progress on cyber. i mean, zero. >> reporter: yeah, well, i think the way that you can look at president putin's response there is almost, you know, continued to be defensive and dismissive of the u.s. claims. but think back to the way president biden presented this invitation he extended to putin

in april. it was to sanction president putin, based in russia, based on what was known at the time. and he did so by adding that he felt he was acting in a reciprocal fashion, but that he could go farther. you wonder in that meeting, especially in that two-on-two meeting with president biden and the secretary of state, it's very different to see the expectation and how they see the response. and it was shorter than we expected. the balance of the shorter two-on-two, and the large bilateral meeting speaks to, i think, a very lateral pro forma laying outside of the issues on what the u.s. is prepared to do if they don't see a change in behavior. certainly, these are the exact changes that our colleague is posing to the president. if we can get to see what those were like in private. >> mike, stand by for a second.

i what to bring in rick stengel, someone who spent a lot of time watching vladimir putin and of course, how he communicates and how we rick with people around the world. rick, can you walk us through, i want to talk about theatrics of this, we're looking at the shot where we see president biden very shortly. it's open space, majestic flags. we just saw, ambassador mcfaul pointed out, vladimir putin, a much smaller room. it looked very different. he clearly demonstrated just how much he loved being in front of those cameras. he seems to revel in it. he took dozens of questions, it seems. what kind of tone and attitude does president biden need to bring to this press conference coming up next? >> well, you're right, the theatrics are lovely. i mean, that's say much better

tableau, it's where ronald reagan was concerned about that, where putin looked like he was in the basement of the kawanis club. with putin, the importance of having a meeting and a meeting that didn't blow up. both sides talked about the stability and predictability. and the deliverable was a stable meeting. part of the diplomacy is listening to things that the other guy says and not commenting on it. and choosing the things that you want to comment on. i agree some of the what about-ism has to be refuted. what you heard is a lot of putin's greatest hits. what you're listening for were there any new songs that he sang? well, the new song that he sang, joe biden is a moral man. he brought up these things, these are issues that we need to

address. earnest, honest, diplomacy can solve all of these issues, this is the goal that biden and blinken had here. america is on the stage, he doesn't want putin to disrupt the other stuff that america has to do. and by forging a relationship with him, by being a candid relationship, as putin said, he has achieved that goal which is basically, in effect, putting putin in a box. and i think, you know, despite all the what about-ism, and i think he has to say that the january 6th protesters were not exactly like the minutemen in 1776, but i think he needs -- he will concentrate we're going to create a framework to deal with these difficult issues. and russia will not be a bad boy on the world stage.

>> let me bring in gary casperoff, obviously, chess grand master most of his life and political activist and putin critic. gary, you and i have had conversations, i'd say, going back a decade now where at times you're frustrated with the american posture dealing with putin. underestimating him at times. what did you see today with putin? what is a pitfall you maybe worry that a president biden needs to avoid? and how much doll you play diplomat joe biden if you're joe biden today, versus pushing back on putin on the world stage? >> well, i've been saying all along that biden didn't have to have the meeting in the first place. so the idea of inviting putin was a mistake. it's a platform a huge platform.

but biden was nostalgic, i guess he's been dreaming of the presidency back in the cold war, looking at nixon, carter and reagan. now he got this moment. that's it. the good news, the only good news about the meeting, the summit, it was shorter than expected. there was not much damage done, but putin got the job done. that's why he was beaming when he left, went into the press conference, even when he entered the building before the talks, taking off the attention that he is dreaming of getting during the last years. and everything he said, you know, i don't think we should even take it seriously. and i was surprised to hear the word we put putin in a box. he's been in a box for years. he doesn't care, it's not about wars, it's about action. regarding the press conference, yeah, we've been listening to

putin's lies for 21 years. so there were no surprises. >> garry kasparov, it's andrea mitchell in geneva. is there anything that president biden can say now that would make you think this is worth doing? >> i doubt very much, speaking about cyber security. you know, you don't make progress with a thief who robbed your house by talking in geneva. of course, we enjoyed it. but i was pleased to see that the meeting was shorter than expected. now, it's not about biden being tough while putting in an ultimatum. it's an action. so far, biden was failing the test. leading the sanctions. that's a message for putin. now putin believes now that he's been elevated to the level that even boris yeltsin couldn't be

there, because america behaved different. now, it's all back to the cold war where russians and americans talked about the future and europeans had to wait in another room. i think with the europeans, the nato allies and then in geneva with all of the bells and whistles it's about the allies and now putin at the diplomatic table. and now biden has to do limited damage and hopefully he can move away from the nostalgia and be constructive. >> garry, it's kasie hunt. i'm curious what you thought when he talked about his mother. when you hear putin talk about that what do you think he's trying to say? >> can i remind you that putin was always have been

complementary to american presidents to bush 43. and very complementary to donald trump, probably for different reasons. so, if you look at the last 20 years, you have three u.s. presidents tried to build constructive relations with russia. in the end, the relations are at the lowest point now. and it's all because putin always views it as an opportunity to violate every agreement that he made and grab the territories of neighboring countries or just supporting his cronies around the world like bashir al assad or maduro in venezuela. so, he's trying to look nice, but at the end of the day, it's not about being nice. it's about attacks on the american infrastructure. since receiving this invitation in april and to this day in geneva, putin, i have no doubt, authorized or at least, you know, did not stop attacks on

american infrastructure, the pipeline and the meat packing industry. and he stepped up. he's aggressive action on it. and now, putin decides not only to putin but any russian can go to jail for year. with a dictatorship, instead of being punished for that, he was rewarded. again, he has reason to celebrate. hopefully, that will be his last time. >> there have been attacks to the metaphor that i've been using in the last days if you look at putin as a bully, you want to bloody the nose of a bully and maybe that will make him react. we've tried sanctions. we've embarrassed him at the olympic committee. the panama papers, exposed his wealth. none of that has had an impact to change his behavior. what would?

>> yeah, i strongly disagree in sanctions. i mean, sanctions are good in paper, in reality, it doesn't prevent russia from selling its natural resources. and as a result, putin's cronies are getting richer and richer. yes, you can have sanctions from the european union, but the fact that germany doubled them on gas buying with the crimea, that's a big deal, but not for putin. he's in charge of the biggest fortune that ever existed in the history. he's probably collected directly $1 trillion or so. again, there's so many words, but no real message. if biden wanted to send a message to putin, he had to go to kiev and zelensky. and thats is the message to putin. follow the money. there's so much money to attack

that is not confiscated in the free world. that's how you get putin's attention. now he has aextra pipeline in europe. europe is hostage. whatever biden says, whatever macron says, he doesn't care. he always asks why not. >> garry kasparov, it's a pleasure having your perspective appreciate your time. thank you, sir. let me bring back andrea, andrea mitchell, you know, garry kasparov never holds back. he never hide what is he thinks. it's straightforward there. and i'll tell you, he's not alone in those that believe that the u.s. hasn't done enough to support the russian opposition to really push back on putin here. you know, we've heard it from people close to navalny. i felt like i heard similar frustration out of garry

kasparov's voice. >> i know exactly. and there were those moments a couple months ago, where there were thousands of russians all over the streets across the country but it was quickly stamped out after navalny was put in jail. antony blinken, secretary of state, and i want to bring in our white house -- excuse me, "the washington post" white house reporter anne gearan is also here in geneva. anne, you've covered so much of these as a white house and pentagon correspondent. your takeaway? we may have to interrupt you if the president comes in. >> absolutely, andrea. i think the main takeaway, these meetings were too short to get through the long list of things that each side decided they wanted to talk about in any depth. the most they could have done, run through them, air a very

brief one side and then the other side and move on to the next thing. it's not a nothing, but it's not a solution to any of the problems. and i think that they'll both restore ambassadors was the lowest of the low-hanging fruit that they got out of the summit. doing that is also not nothing. the embassies have been hollowed out and returning the ambassadors to getting the embassies back on track post-covid will help the relationship in ways that aren't immediately available. but it will be interesting to see what the president says here now that he has a list of things that he needs to respond to from what putin had to say at his own press conference. >> and we just got a two-minute warning to that press conference. so it's now less than a minute and a half. kasie hunt, you have time for a quick question. >> we want to bring in ben rhodes here just to set the stage. again, he's walking out there, ben, forgive us if we cut you

off. at this point, i mean, what's your top question for president biden as he walks to this podium? >> the top question is whether he wants to take on things that putin said and demonstrably push back. with press conferences with this, keep in mind, the american people, the russian people, the russian president, it's also the world. i think biden has to recognize what he says, the words he speaks about how he responds to that performance by vladimir putin is very predictable. that's going to be consumed by people who believe in democracies, for people who are concerned about putin and who he represents. and how he combats the message democracy standing up to autocracy, how he frames that while talking about nuclear arms control. it's a tricky balance to strike. but if he can set it up, he can point to the fact that he was with the world democracy, at the

g7 in nato and he represented the democracies and the people in that room today become but this is going to be a tricky news conference because the entire world is watching very closely. >> andrea, i get it. we both were sitting here listening to garry kasparov. he was quite skeptical that this summit should have happened. what do you say to that? >> i take to a different position, i think if you go back to the timing when the biden administration offered the summit, you remember russian troops were amassing in and around ukraine. i think if you're sitting in the white house, it's your first 100 days and you're really concerned that a major conflict over ukraine with russia is going to derail your entire administration's priorities. so it was like a time-out. let's take the temperature down. let's give us some space that we can have this dialogue and discussion. i think they were effective in doing that. of course, the attacks, ransomware attacks, all of that

has continued. but i do think they are basically looking in the summit and the russia relationship more generally, they're looking to try to prevent russia from disrupting what they want to accomplish on china and covid and climate and everything else that they want to do. to do that you have to put guard rails on the relationship. that's what this summit was about. it was about having the leader-to-leader ties. it was talking about restoring the diplomatic presence. and i don't think we canunder estimate the uncontrolled strategic dialogue. >> if we went into a new s.t.a.r.t. it could be totally a disaster. with that, i think we see the president getting ready to walk out now. there he is. let's turn the podium over. a long day for you all. i know it was easy giving in to the pre-meeting, there was no problem to get through those doors, was it? anyway, hello, everyone.

well, i've just finished the last meeting of this week's long trip. the u.s./russian summit. and i there was a lot of hype around this meeting. but it's pretty straightforward to me, the meeting. one, there's no substitute, as those of you who have covered me for a while know for face-to-face dialogue between meetings, none. and president putin and i had a shared and unique responsibility to manage the relationship between two powerful and proud countries. a relationship that has to be stable and predictable. and it should be -- we should be able to cooperate where it's in our mutual interest and where we have difference, i want president putin to understand why i say what i say. and why i do what i do. and how we'll respond to

specific kinds of actions that harm america's interest. now, i told president putin my agenda is not against russia or anyone else. it's for the american people. fighting covid-19. rebuilding our economy. re-establishing relationships around the world with allies and friends. and protecting the american people. that's my responsibility as president. i also told that no president of the united states could keep faith with the american people if they did not speak out to defend our democratic values, to stand up for the universal and fundamental freedoms that all men and women have in our view. that's just part of the dna of our country. so, human rights is going to always be on the table, i told him. it's not just about going after russia, when they violate human rights. it's about who we are.

how could i be the president of the united states of america, and not speak out against the violation of human rights. i told him. that unlike other countries, including russia, we're uniquely a product of an idea. you've heard me say this before again and again. i'm going to keep saying it. it was that idea. we don't derive our rights from the government. we possess them because we're born -- period. and we yield them to a government. so, the forum, i pointed out to him that's why we're going to raise our concerns about cases like alexei navalny. i made it clear to president putin that we'll continue to raise issues of fundamental human rights. because that's what we are. that's who we are. the idea is we hold these truths

self-evident, we haven't lived up to it complete by, but we widen the arc of commitment and i raise the case of paul wellen and trevor reed. i also raised the ability of radio free europe and radio liberty to operate and the importance of freedom of press and freedom of speech. i made it clear we will not violate our dremmatic sovereignty. the bottom line, we need to have basic rules of the road that we can all areas, and one of those areas is strategic stability. you asked me many times what was i going to discuss with putin before i came. i told you i only negotiate with the individual. now, i can tell you what i was

intending to do all along. and that is to discuss and raise the issue of strategic stability and try to set up a mechanism worldwide where we dealt with it. we discussed in detail the next steps our countries take on arms control measures. the steps we need to take to reduce the risk of unintended conflict. i'm pleased he agreed today to launch a bilateral strategic stability dialogue. diplomatic speak for saying get our military experts, our diplomats together, to work in a mechanism that can lead to control of new and dangerous and sophisticated weapons that are coming on the scene now. that reduce the times of response, that raise the prospects of accidental war. and we went into some detail of what those weapons systems were. another area we spent a great deal of time on was cyber. and cyber security. i talked about the proposition that certain critical

infrastructures should be off-limits to attack, period, by cyber, or any other means. i gave them a list. if i'm not mistaken, i don't have it in front of me, 16 specific entities. 16 defined as critical infrastructure under u.s. policy, from the energy second tore our water systems. of course, the principle is one thing. it has to be backed up by practice. responsible countries need to take action against criminals who conduct ransomware activities on their territory. so, we agreed to task experts in both our countries to work on specific understandings about what's off-limits and to follow-up on specific cases that originate in other countries. and in either of our countries. there's a long list of other things we spent time on. and the urgent need to preserve and reopen the humanitarian

corridors of syria to get food and basic necessities to people who are starving to death. how to build it. and how it is in the interest of both russia and the united states to ensure that iran, iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. we agreed to work together there. as much as russia's interest as ours. and to how we can ensure the arctic remains in that region of cooperation rather than a conflict. i caught part of president putin's press conference. and he talked about the need for us to be able to some kind of modus operandi that we dealt with in making sure that the arctic is in fact a free zone. and how we can each contribute to the shared effort of preventing the resurgence of terrorism in afghanistan. it's very much in the interest of russia not to have a resurgence of terrorism in afghanistan.

there are also areas that are more challenging. i communicated the united states' unwavering commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the ukraine. we agreed to pursue the sovereignty of the minsk. i shared the disagreement with belarus, he didn't disagree. i know you have a lot of questions, let me close with this. it was important to meet in person so there could be no mistake about or misrepresentations about what i wanted to communicate. i came what i did to one, number one, identify the areas of work our two countries can do to advance our efforts and benefit the world. two, communicate directly, directly, that the united states will respond to actions that are

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

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

that most are likely to be damaged with failure to do that, are major countries. for example, when i talked about the pipeline that cyberhit for 5 -- ransomware hit in the united states. i looked at him and i said, how would you feel if ransomware took on the pipelines from your oil fields? he said it would matter. this is not about just our self-interests. mutual self-interests. i'll take your questions. as usual, folks, they gave me a list of the people i'm going to call on. jonathan, associated press. >> thank you, sir. u.s. intelligence has said that russia tried to interfere in the last two presidential elections and that russia groups are behind hacks like solarwinds and some of the ransomware attacks you just mentioned. putin in his news conference just now semed no responsibility

for any misbehavior. your predecessor opted that mr. putin not stop this. what have you achieved today to prevent that from happening again and what are the consequences that are threatened? >> whether i stop it from happening again, he knows i will take action like we did this last time out. what happened was, we in fact made it clear that we were not going to continue to allow this to go on. the end result was we ended up withdrawing -- withdrawing ambassadors. we closed down some of their facilities in the united states, et cetera. he knows there are consequences. now, look, one of the consequences that i know -- i don't know, i shouldn't say this, it's unfair of me. i suspect you may all think doesn't matter. but i'm confident it matters to him and other world leaders of big nations. his credibility worldwide shrinks. let's get this straight. how would it be if the united states were viewed by the rest

of the world as interfering with the election directly of other countries? and everybody knew it? what would it be like if we engaged in activities that he's engaged in? it diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains its standing, as a major world power. and so, it's not just what i do, it's what the actions that other countries take. in this case, russia, that are contrary to international norms. it's the price they pay. they are not -- they are not able to dictate what happens in the world. there are other nations of significant consequence, i.e., the united states of america would be one of them. >> mr. president, just a quick follow-up on the same theme of consequences. you said just now you spoke a lot to him about human rights what would you say happens if opposition leader alexei navalny dies? >> i made it clear to him that i believe the consequences of that would be devastating for russia.

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

long as they do it based on international norms. it's our interest to see the russian people do well economically. i don't have a problem with that. but if they do not act according to national norms, then guess what, that will -- that not only won't happen with us, it will not happen with other nations. and we kind of talked about that, didn't we, today? about the need to reach out to other countries to invest in russia. they won't as long as they're convinced that in fact the violations -- for example, the american businessman who was on house arrest. and i had pointed out, you want to get american businessmen to invest, let him go. change the dynamic. because american businessmen, they're not ready to show up. they don't want to hang around in moscow. look, guys, i know we make foreign policy out to be this great, great skill. that somehow is sort of like a secret code.

all foreign policy is a logical extension of personal relationships. it's the way human nature functions. and understand, when you run a country that does not abide by international norms and yet you need those international norms to be somehow managed so that you can participate in the benefit that flow from them, that hurts you. that's not a satisfying answer, biden said he'd invade russia, you know. by the way that was a joke. that's not true. but my generic point is it's more complicated than that. david sanger. there he is. >> thank you, mr. president. in the runup to this discussion, there's been a lot of talk about the two countries spilling down into a cold war. and i'm wondering if there was anything that you emerged from in the discussion that made you

think that -- >> with your permission, i'm going to take my coat off, the sun is hot. >> anything that would make you think that mr. putin has decided to move away from his fundamental role as a disrupter, particularly a disrupter of nato and the united states? and if i could also just follow up on your description of how he gave him a list of critical infrastructure in the united states. did you lay out very clearly what it was that the penalty would be for interfering in that critical infrastructure? did you leave that vague? did he respond in any way to it? >> i'll answer your second question first. i pointed out to him we have significant cybercapability. and he knows it. he doesn't know exactly what it is. but it's significant. and if in fact, they violate the basic norms, we will respond, cyber. he knows.

it's cyber. and number two, i think that the last thing he wants now is a cold war. without quoting him which i don't think is appropriate. let me ask a rhetorical question, you got a multi thousand border with china, china is moving ahead, hell-bent on election as they say seeking to be the largest and most powerful military in the world. you're in a situation where your economy is struggling. you need to move it in a more aggressive way in terms of growing it. and you -- i don't think he's looking for a cold war with the united states. i don't think -- as i said to him, i said, your generation and mine are about ten years apart. this is not a kumbaya moment as we used to say back in the '60s in the united states, like,

let's hug and love each other. but it's clearly not in anybody's interest, your country or mine, for us to be in a situation where we're in a new cold war. i truly believe he thinks that, he understands that but that doesn't mean he's ready to, quote, lay down his arms and say come on. he still is, i believe, concerned about being, quote, in circle. he still is concerned that we, in fact, are looking to take you down, he still has those concerns. but i don't think they're the driving force of the kind of relationship he's looking for with the united states. jennifer jacobs. >> thank you, mr. president. is there a particular reason why the summit lasted only about three hours? we know you allotted four to five hours? was there any reason it ran shorter? also president putin said that there were no threats or scare

tactics issued. do you agree with that assessment that there were no threats or scare tactics? >> yes. >> and also did you touch on afghanistan and the safe withdrawal of troops. >> yes, yes, and yes. let me go back to the first part. the reason it didn't go long, the last time two heads of state spent two hours across the table until excruciating detail, you may know a time, i don't. i can't think so. so we didn't need when we brought in our larger group, my foreign minister -- my secretary of state was with me the whole time our ambassador, et cetera, we brought everybody isn't. we had covered so much. so there was a summary done by him and me what we covered. lavrov and blinken talked about what we covered. we raised things that required

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

>> there were no threats? >> no, no, there were no threats. as a matter of fact, i heard he quoted my mom and quoted other people today. it was very -- as we say, it will shock you coming from me, what colloquial, and we talked about basic and fundamental things. you know how i am, i explain thing based on personal basis. what happens if? so there were simple assertions and no well, if you do that, we'll do that in what i said. we just let him know where i stood. what i thought we could accomplish together. and what in fact, if there were violations of american sovereignty, what would we do. >> did you ask [ inaudible ] -- >> no, he asked us about afghanistan. he said he hopes we're able to maintain some peace and security.

and i said that has a lot to do with you. he indicated that he was prepared to, quote, help on afghanistan. i won't go into detail now. help on iran. and help on -- in return, we told him what we wanted to do relative to bring something stability and economic security, physical security, to the people of syria and libya. so, we had those discussions. >> ameche. >> thanks so much, mr. president. you say that you didn't issue any threats. were there any ultimatums made when it comes to ransomware? and how would you assess when it comes to groups on russian security and cyber security? >> it's very easy, on cyber security, are they going to work out where they take action against ransomware criminals on

russian territory. they didn't do it. i don't think they planned it in this case. and are they going to act? we'll find out. will we commit? will we commit to act in terms of anything affecting, violating international norms that vaguely affects russia? what are we going to agree to do. so, i think we have real opportunities to move. and i think that one of the things that i noticed when we had the larger meeting is that people who are very, very well informed started thinking, you know, this is going to be a real problem. what happens if that ransomware outfit were sitting in florida or maine and took action, as i said, on their single lifeline to their economy? oil. it would be devastating. you could see kind of go, whoa. it's within everybody's interests when you act like that

we'll see what happens when you put the groups together. >> may i have a follow up? >> third one, go ahead. >> mr. putin was questioned about human rights he said the reason why he's cracking down on opposition leaders is because he doesn't want something like january 6th happen in russia. and he also doesn't want to see groups like black lives matter form. what's your response to that, please? >> my response is kind of what i communicated. i think that's a ridiculous comparison. it's one thing for literally criminals to break through cordoned, go into the capitol, kill a police officer and be held accountable than it is for people objectively marching on the capitol and saying you're not allowing me to speak freely, you're not allowing me to do a., b., c. or d.

they're very different criteria. steve holland. >> the president said he was satisfied with the answer be him being a killer. can you give us your stance on this, what you can tell justice. >> he's satisfied. >> do you believe you can trust him? >> look, this is not about trust. this is about self-interest and verification of self-interest. that's what will it's about. so, i virtually almost anyone that i would work out an agreement with that affected the american people's interest, i don't say, well, i trust you, no problem. let's see what happens. you now, there's that old expression goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. we're going to know shortly. igor, radio free europe and radio liberty. >> hello, mr. president. >> do you want to go in the shade? can you see? >> yeah, yeah.

so, i think you know the single society and free press inside of russia. >> yes. >> for example, radio free europe, radio free liberty, voice of america, where i work, and the foreign agents and several other independent media, so we're essentially being forced out in russia, 30 years after president yeltsin invited us in. my question is, after your talks with president putin, how actively do you think he's improving the media climate in russia? >> i wouldn't put it that way, in terms of improving the climate. i would in fact put it in terms of how much interest does he have in burnishing russia's reputation? that is not viewed as not being

contrary to democratic principles and free speech. that's a judgment i cannot make. i don't know. but it's not because i think he's interested in changing the nature of closed society, or closed governments, actions relative to what he thinks is the right of government to do what it does. it's a very different approach. and, you know, there's a couple of really -- i told him i read a couple -- i read most everything he's written. and the speeches he's made. and i've read a couple good-bye good biographies which some of you have. and i think i pointed out like you have, that russia had that opportunity of that brief shiny moment after gorbachev and

things changed democratic government. but what happened was, it failed. and there was a great, great race among russian intellectuals to determine what form of government would they choose. and how would they choose it. and based on what i believe mr. putin decided it was, that russia has always been a major international power when it's been totally united as a russian state. not based on ideology, whether it was going back to czar and czars straight through the revolution, the russian revolution, and to where they are today. and i think that it's clear to me, and i've said it, but i think he decided that the way for russia to be able to sustain itself as this great -- quote, great power, is to in fact unite the russian people on just the strength of the government. the government controls.

not necessarily ideologically, but the government. and i think that's the -- that's the choice that was made. i think it -- i'm not going to second guess whether it think i does not lend itself to russia maintaining itself as one of the great powers of the world. >> sir, can i ask you one more question? thank you, sir. >> reporter: with the military response, in terms of the red lines you laid down, is military response the answer for a ransomware attack? and you told president putin he did not have a soul. do you have a deeper understanding of him after this

meeting? >> thank you very much. >> on the military response? >> no, we didn't talk about military response. >> reporter: mr. president, are you saying there is no substitute for face-to-face dialogue, and also what you said at nato, that the biggest problems right now are russia and china. you said you've spent more time with president xi than any other world leaders. might there come a time when you might call him, old friend to old friend, and ask him to open up china to the world health investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of covid-19? >> let me get something straight. we know each other well, we're not old friends. just pure business. >> you signed on to the g-7 calling on china to open up to let the investigators in, but china basically says they don't want to be interfered with

anymore, so what happens now? >> the impact, the world's attitude toward china as it develops. china is trying very hard to project itself as a responsible and very forthcoming nation. they are finding it very hard to talk about how they're taking and helping the world in terms of covid-19 and vaccines. they're trying very hard. look, certain things you don't have to explain to the people of the world. they see the results. is china really actually trying to get to the bottom of this? one thing we did discuss, as i told you in the eu and at the g-7 and with nato. what we should be doing and what i'm going to make an effort to do is rally the world to work on what is going to be the physical mechanism available to detect the next pandemic, and have a

mechanism in which we can respond to it and respond to it early. it's going to happen. it's going to happen. and we need to do that. thank you. >> what did he say -- >> i'm going to work on that discussion. i'm not walking away from that. >> why are you so confident on his reaction, president biden? >> when did i say that? >> you said in six months you would be able to determine that. >> i said what will change their behavior is when the rest of the world diminishes his standing in the world. i'm not confident of anything. i'm just stating a fact. >> reporter: given his past has not changed after that press conference sitting down with you for several hours, he denied any

involvement in cyberattacks, he -- how is that giving you confidence? >> i was about to use the phrase pragmatic diplomacy, and then we got a somewhat -- i think the president got his back up there a little bit, kasie, about the implication that somehow he was expressing confidence that couldn't change his behavior. and then pretty dismissive of the follow-up question as if you don't understand how diplomacy works. and i think -- i feel like that was him saying -- and there's perhaps going to be some -- we had some folks in our ear who said he really has to push back on the what-aboutisms and he has to do this, and some saying maybe he didn't do it.

he clearly had a posture of the phrase i want to use which is pragmatic diplomacy, like, look, he is who he is. we know where we stand. i think i know where he stands. we expressed this and we'll see what happens, right? it was this, i'm not going to sit here and say it's going to go great, but i still believe in this one on one. look, he tried to embrace the areas where he thought putin did want to embrace as well. it was -- it's just an interesting posture. i viewed it -- at one point i wrote professor biden because i thought he was basically trying to be above it, be above the meeting and explain, guys, he's got a game, the russians have this china issue, they think we have a china issue, essentially. russia is going to have a china issue soon. i actually thought for quite a while it was very effective. >> so that phrase "rise above" is exactly the one i was going to use, because he even walks out onto the stage, looks at the reporters and says, oh, i just

finished my last meeting. i know you guys were most interested in this one but i had all these other meetings. that was so carefully choreographed to show he was em embracing our allies in a way the previous president didn't. he kept using the phrase "strategic ability," basically trying to rise above all the ways in which vladimir putin was trying to get a rise out of him, create his own reality. i had a very brief answer response on january 6 which of course putin raised, even when he was talking about cybercrimes. putin came out there and said, oh, we're not even on the list of people who are engaged in this. obviously not the case, but biden tried to rise above it. at the end there, that flash of anger, i thought, was extraordinarily telling in that he had sort of kept his cool all the way up until then, and then, of course, he finished his list of actual reporters. he could never quite get off the

stage without trying to take that last question. >> that's why we don't cut in too quickly. he'll take the challenge. >> and he did. he stood there and said he's not walking away from the families, for example, whose loved ones are imprisoned in russia, et cetera. >> let's bring in ben rhodes, rick stengel as well. ben, it certainly sounded like to me that the two-on-two, lav lavrov, putin, that there was a, okay, you play this game, we are, too. is that what you took away from the diplo translation biden was attempting there? >> 100%, chuck, that's exactly

right. i've been to a lot of meetings where it starts with the big meeting and then skinnies down with president biden and president putin in the room. the whole point of this meeting was for him to be able to sit down in a very small setting, just one other person in the room, someone he trusts more than anyone else, toy blinken, and just lay out, here's what i see. here's what i think you're doing. here's where we can measure progress and we can assign these guys, lavrov and blinken, to set up some teams to work on it. and, chuck, what i do think was effective in that press conference, he was pretty honest to say, i don't know if we're going to solve these problems. i'm not trying to raise expectations too high here. what i've done now is communicated what my views are in all these things, and we'll be able to see in the next six months to a year to two years whether or not there is any progress on these things. and i think it's smart to not raise expectations too much given that it is vladimir putin. and so, you know, that's all you

can really do here. and i think the challenge they have with this whole summit is the pageantry of a u.s./russia summit is so big, and coming off this trip, it obviously attracted so much attention, and vladimir putin has been such a force in democracy and democracy globally that there will always be a huge intense spotlight. in some ways biden was trying to diminish that spotlight by saying, this is just a business meeting. let's see what can happen. which i think that was the most he could accomplish there, but the ball, as is often the case, is vladimir putin's court now, and time and again we've seen putin wants more attention, putin wants to push back. they'll have to monitor this. i think this is the beginning, not the end, of how they approach russia. >> let's go to mike memoli who is in geneva and has been with the president this entire trip. mike, the president called

foreign policy the largest extension of personal relationships, and you know so well that personal relationships are so critical to biden's perception of politics and to the world. what did you learn from vladimir putin from watching him and president biden here at this press conference? >> reporter: well, you know, kasie, as i was listening to the president really talk about in personal terms how this meeting from his perspective played out, i was thinking to what then-vice president biden said when i was traveling with him to beijing ten years ago when he had the first of many meetings with then-chinese president xi jinping. when you have as complicated a relationship as you did then, china relationship, now u.s./china relationship, you don't necessarily need a meeting. the fact that he and putin didn't need as much time as was budgeted to him, this