and such methods are generally practicable the question is how well those security agencies are controlled by the public with which i can tell you that at least in russia you can't just go and tap into someone's phone conversation without a warrant issued by court that's more or less the way a civilized society should go about fighting terrorism with modern day technology as long as its exile is within the boundaries of the law that regulates intelligence activities it's all right but if it's unlawful then that's bad as a. government that we want to throw around like i said rather than go to do that you cannot have one hundred percent security more while maintaining the hundred years i spent trying to think of one of those who should have known to you yes you can but i'd like to reiterate that you do have to obtain a warrant for specific policing activities domestically so why shouldn't this requirement mean valid for intelligence agencies as well it can and it should i'm sure what it involves. do you mean you did what does that mean we haven't even

snowed in nasiriya or tacky and there's been talk of use in russia. everybody has been talking about them but if you solve the messes you agree with them then to the length when you go back to the grand opera ballet performance but if you questions still remain but i wonder about the religious aspect of your divorce and this is something many people like questioning at the moment you know what you know the truth because it's. only for the first of all i can tell you that i myself agree that it's much more appropriate to be open about i actual state of relations than try to keep it secret. it was clear what that could be that's what they say in the press today regardless of what it's really a saying well thanks for that much as for the religious aspect of marriage there is none because we've never weighed in church and you didn't read no i see you set an alarm until his deputy editor in chief or rather you have the microphone because

the link you margarito actually i only has i want you pardon my present position for the week before that i spent twenty years working as a reward i've traveled particularly all over the world including many conflicts there against it i haven't lost my sense of danger in the process but that's why i'm still alive thank you yes. god bless you i said wessel thank you very much it is good my question concerns conflicts too i mean to ask you about these drones . aerial vehicles. because you know if the american people use drones to deliver air strikes almost on a daily basis for this happens especially often in pakistan and if you other countries with drones are arguably have a very convenient means of warfare there is no direct engagement and no risk of your rank and file it's all remote controlled like a computer game however this is something we see in the. news almost every day this

kind of warfare this fourth with massive casualties among civilians so on one hand drones are get efficient in combat but on the other hand will all aware of the collateral damage the public in many countries down this shocking and there has already been a motion for imposing an international ban on using drones so what i would like to ask you about russia's attitude on the issue thank you. well. gunpowder was originally invented in china and no one's managed to keep it from spreading ever since then came nuclear arms and they also started to spread molten means of warfare keep evolving and they always will i doubt if it's possible to simply ban a soul but you certainly can and should introduce certain rules and exercise control i'm sure the united states does not target civilians on purpose and the drone operations you've mentioned get people to and i think they understand all these things somewhat but you still need to combat terrorism i know that currently

debating this issue in the united states and the notion is being advocated increasing the often within the u.n. framework that you need to put drones or to control you need to lay out certain rules of engagement or in order to prevent or minimize collateral casualties or it's extremely important i don't know whether a western counterparts will choose this option but i would suggest it would be in their best interest in the north however there are other threats to us for example they have presently debates on the option of using normal nuclear ballistic missiles in the united states can you imagine how potentially dangerous that is what if such a missile were to launch from somewhere in the middle of an ocean and gets hit by a nuclear bomb that was an early warning system how should that nuclear power reacting to a missile coming its way how are they supposed to know whether this missile comes with a nuclear warhead or not you know what if a missile impacts right next to its border or inside his territory do you realize how perilous that we can be that will be you know or take the notion of

a low yield nuclear weapons so you realize how badly that can blur the very down drees of using nuclear bombs that know how low the threshold might signal for authorizing such a strike can you imagine the possible implications i where the limits are lowering down at all russia and who's setting them there are many threats in the world of today and there is only one way trip dress them efficiently that is. working together within the boundaries of international law. we've got a lot where now i don't think it was showing up last night out of a who's the president of one of our most popular shows across talk peter has worked in reality since its very beginning he will be speaking in english and i will translate the question for you thank you for the my question we very short here it seems like we live in the age of opposition. and we have the arab spring we heard about europe and the crisis there. and the occupy movement united states which our

team did an excellent job in covering but what about the opposition in russia public opinion polls show it's very small not much support what kind of opposition would you like to challenge you ok and the role of mr cordray. if i translate it. well on the opposition can be useful you just mentioned occupy wall street where at a certain point we saw the police cracking down on the occupy wall street activists i won't call the actions of police appropriate or inappropriate my point is that every opposition movement is good and useful if it acts within law if they don't like the law they should use democratic means to change those laws which they should persuade voters to join them i think they should get elected into the legislature is so that they can have a chance to change the law this is the way to change things on the ground but if there are people who act outside the law then the state must use legal means to impose an award in the interests of the majority of him but that's the way it's

done in the us and that's the way it's done in russia and the truth be told we criticise for that but when the same thing happens in the us it's considered to be normal never mind that it is double standards we have got accustomed to this and pay little attention to it with them when they talk about it when it happens in the us are to growth america. but i want you to the right thing in that everyone must be treated in the same fashion because these two situations are identical because the only difference is that our diplomatic missions don't actively cooperate with occupy wall street and your diplomatic missions work together and directly support russian opposition but i think this is wrong because diplomatic missions must force ties between states and not meddle in their domestic politics. getting back to popular movements reckless behavior is not appreciated by people if these activists are breaking the law then it's illegal and if they express their will by legal means without breaking the law then they're fully entitled to do that which in this

case it would be beneficial to any state because it's a way to provide grassroots feedback on state policies whether it be social domestic or foreign policy. or as for mr couture and he is my long standing associate we see eye to eye on many vital issues of russia's development and that's vern obvious reason we've known each other for a long time now we worked together back in some petersburg and then he became a member of the cabinet and proved to be one of the most efficient ministers i've always backed him on key decisions and if i didn't he wouldn't be able to work to implement those ideas and principles that he promoted so to a certain extent that was our joint policy so he has his own view on certain things it so happened that they had a disagreement with mr medvedev on a number of issues and since mr medvedev was president we have the right to take the decision that he eventually took. today alexy khujand says that he is ready to rejoin the executive branch if the authorities were more decisive but he's quite

reluctant to specify what he means by being more decisive when i ask him to be why because more decisive means taking toughest steps for example in terms of the pension reform in terms of raising the retirement age no one including the opposition wants to speak about it to the public with what they think is the right but they don't want to talk too loudly on the issue also taking tougher steps on of the issues like slashing budget expenditures and social spending first of all many of our liberal economists think that our social expenditures are too high that we raise salaries and pensions and social benefits too fast they point out that the growth in real disposable incomes is unjustified last year we had a four point two percent increase and it's up five point nine percent in the first four months of this year already they argue this salaries are grain faster than labor efficiencies with which is bad and dangerous for the economy there's no

denying it and they're absolutely right but maybe it's best not to decrease real disposable incomes but rather to improve our labor efficiency russians often save the goal is not to expand the amount of the wealthy people but rather to reduce the amount of the poor there is a very hard thing to do and the best part of the opposition has admitted this to us in private and professional meetings that the public way they are afraid to speak about it and this is wrong i have told them many times now if you stick to some idea you have to be straightforward about it don't be afraid that some part of the nation won't like it if you are to garner more support for your ideas you have to stick to your principles to expand your electoral base i mean look at western europe today they've brought their countries to the edge of bankruptcy but whenever they talk of lower salaries like that people are up enormously so it would have made more sense to increase your social spending and debt more gradually but for all. it would have been great for the authorities if they had been someone who

could have told them about it i don't think our social spending is too high i don't think we increased pensions salaries and social benefits too much but generally mr the other people like him have a point to make and we need to listen to them it's very useful so i believe that an opposition that has the national interest at heart will be in demand. next question is from. the president of our new moved into presenting up to several years of reporting for our to. do anyway with the one. of the tells about how a person without a wash up in the. chair i question is a follow up to your previous reply concerning principles as a principled position i would like however to those notions to the radiant issue iran will be holding a presidential election soon i know that russia doesn't like to meddle with domestic politics of other countries and that's why my question would be as general as possible because it's more of a philosophical kind to me iran is

a great example of how you can create extreme tension and mutual relations by blowing out of proportion some insignificant differences the iranian nuclear issue that everyone's been talking about for the last decade basically relies only on some vague suspicions which year after year have been dismissed even by americans themselves but that rhetoric has ignored the fact that iran has been compliant with the nonproliferation regime by ninety nine or one hundred percent of the mainstream focuses on suspicions but at the core as i see it is the relationship between the us and iran to iran is partially to blame for the time to build up but the root of the problem is the stance of washington their signature foreign policy principle friend and foe divide meaning that if you are not their ally you are their enemy and it seems that the level of tolerance to dissent is quite low and when it drops too much. we see threats of war based around the suspicions as is the case with

iran or assistance to war as is the case with syria russia has a good record of avoiding tension and relations with other countries your public statements indicate that you know the cost of an miti or rather open confrontation however i believe that russia and the u.s. have ideological fundamental differences on the use of force in particular that no private meetings can resolve it all stems from the national idea of the us they believe they have a higher responsibility which is actually just a very good right so where is the line for you between avoiding an all out confrontation that could have an impact on russian security and maintaining our principles position which good to be critical to our security. oh pushes me when i didn't know what i'm getting was it a punish the us or a rod. i don't know i thought when you see that i tough guy. and i thought the op was more than a little put out that your response to your question could take hours it's so

complex but i will try to be as concise as possible in my opinion first i've repeatedly voice rush's official stance on iran has the rights to a peaceful nuclear program and it can't be singled out for discrimination second we need to be aware that iran is located in a very challenging regional and i'm told our raid in part is about that and that's why iranian threats made towards neighboring countries have particular israel threats that israel can be destroyed absolutely unacceptable this is counterproductive. but the mushroom. this is not a proper i wrote out of the iranian president. then you could hear it as a white man so whether it's a problem white or not it means it's best to avoid a wording that could be improperly quoted could be interpreted differently that's why the focus on iran does have a reason behind it but i have no doubts that iran is complying with the rules simply because there's no proof of the opposite when they called into the latest

i.a.e.a. report iran has been abiding by the commitments it has taken up with the truth there are some outstanding issues but with jew patients in friendly attitudes they can be resolved but i have a great respect for iran and a great interest in it this is a great country indeed you don't often hear this attitude mentioned in relation to iran but it's true because this is a country with a great culture a great history and is a great nation they're very proud of a country they have their own understanding of their place but in their region and in the world and that's something you have to respect you have grasped the core of the problem but on the iranians are very smart and cunning politicians and to a certain degree they have exploited this confrontation with the united states. i'm with them. they are not because they only want us to step in notorious streaming across the in this and they do it to tackle the domestic political issues when there is an external enemy it united the nation but i guess the united states have

been employing the same technique after the collapse of the soviet union they have been no external threats that would allow washington to dominate the west there must be a threat so that the u.s. can protect their allies from it with this position yields political and economic benefits if everyone relies on one country for protection then this country is entitle to some preferential treatment so it's very important to possess this status of a global defender to be able to resolve issues even beyond the realm of foreign policy and security issues i think the u.s. has been using iran for this very purpose that it is to unite their allies in the shadow of a real or false threat it's quite a complicated issue but it's not an issue for brush it we've been complying with our international commitments including on iran's peaceful nuclear program but as you know russia built the boosh air power plant in iran we've completed this project and prepared for further cooperation yet when we proposed to enrich uranium

on russian territory iranian partners refused for reasons unknown to us they argue that they will enrich uranium on their own in line with the existing international regulations and as i said earlier if they don't break any rules they are fully entitled to do that we would endorse this right but we were also remain aware of the concerns that other states and the international community has concerning full compliance with these rules. you know. maybe it wasn't actually the best of us the level of trust can i clarify something and the thing is i was asking you not only about the u.s. and iran and relations but also about the u.s. russian relations when you agree that we have fundamental ideological differences on key issues of international law so we're going to leave it. and meeting with us obama you're pushing me to make some serious statements and it's very important if the country thinks it has more rights than others you know those stories i mean i thought you wouldn't notice my deviation but you did indeed you are very persistent

to date we don't have any significant ideological differences but we have fundamental cultural differences individual ism lies at the core of the american identity while russia has been a country of collectivism one student of pushkin's legacy has formulated this difference very aptly take scarlett o'hara from gone with the wind for instance she says i'll never be hungry again this is the most important thing for russians have different far lofty ambitions more of a spiritual kind it's more about your relationship with god we have different visions of life that's why it's very difficult to understand each other but it's still possible. and i mean that's why there is international more to create a level playing field for adult one. so you know starting with us is a very democratic state there's no doubt about that and it originally developed as a democratic state when the first century sent their votes on the continent

lifeforce that to forge a relationship and maintain a dialogue with each other to survive and that's why america was initially conceived as a fundamental democracy because with that in mind we should not forget that america's development began to move with a large scale ethnic cleansing unprecedented in human history but i wouldn't like to delve so deeply into it but you're forcing me to do it when i washed when your opinions arrived in america that was the first thing they did and you have to be honest about it there are not so many stories like that in human history and you can then take the destruction of carthage of the roman empire the legend has it and romans plowed over and sowed the city with salt and he said that nothing will ever grow that europeans didn't use the sultan because they use the land for agriculture . but they wiped out the indigenous want to nation and they were slavery and that's something that is deeply ingrained in america in his memoirs us secretary of state colin powell and it revealed how hard it was for him as a black eye matter how hard it was for him to live with other people staring at you

it means this mentality has taken root in the hearts and minds of the people and is likely to still be there with his will of now take this sort of you need we know a lot about just on the now that we know him is a dictator and it's high risk but still i don't think that in this spring of one thousand nine hundred five stalin would have used a nuclear bomb against germany or if he had what he could have done it in one thousand nine hundred eighty one or nine hundred forty two when it was a matter of life or death but i really doubt that he would have done it in one nine hundred forty five where the enemy had almost given up and had absolutely no chance to reverse a trend i don't think he would now look at the u.s. they dropped the bomb on japan a country that was a non-nuclear states but it was very close to a free so there are big differences between us but it's quite natural that people with such differences that will tell me to find ways to understand each other better i don't think there is an alternative and moreover you know it's not by chance that russia and the us fortunate alliance even in the most critical moments

of modern history that was the case in world war one and world war two even if there was face confrontation our countries united in the face of a common thread which means there is something that unites us but it must be some fundamental interests that bring us together with that something we need to focus on first we need to be aware of our differences focus on a positive agenda that can improve our cooperation they can but. they said we need you what are important eighteen is there are not twice so much now because americans may have missed about what you just simply look at talbots side they had today seems like nothing that's most about what would jesus comes from america you must feel anything related to the u.s. . thank you topic for us with the interior on this to see a chatty man who has a passion become a strong new york that is maintained reach if you want to tell us raising a child not only america which caters to an american audience and focuses specifically on american issues is that what i miss to see ashit. new york at that

bustling it. was a yes thank you i've lived in new york for the past five years you have mentioned the fundamental differences as well as the common features that russia shares with the united states i would like to go back to our diplomatic relations and the present issues of the international game i mean when i meet american politicians and russia experts these days i often hear them acknowledge off record as a miniscule adding it has actively come through the tracks we're going to manage which demonstrates the same outdated approach towards russia as we know when iraq abandon that stream of very effective during the summit and so last year he made some saying he would have more flexibility obviously right direction. but with but it is early but this is you that is just going to go off the banks distributing. the bucket you know this is the last question i promise at least.

i'll know him tonight on the floor was the appearance you're called crazy with russia in many respects i average that is not what we're seeing today but we're already touched upon many of our remaining issues with one who asked us why do you think the reset has not worked should be and can it ever take place in the first place as an equal recycling process or is it the trash is always expected to sector five its national interest. in specialty should national policy any state pursues its national interests in the u.s. is no exception you what's unique here is that the collapse of the soviet union left america is the world single leader but there was a catch associated with it in that it began to view itself as an empire to its course but an empire is not only about foreign policy and it's also about domestic policy and empire cannot afford to display weakness and any attempt to strike an agreement on equitable terms is often seen domestically as weakness to do on the

bus but the leadership cannot afford display weakness due to domestic policy considerations i think the current administration realizes that it cannot solve the world's major issues on its own. they still want to do it and second they can only take steps that if it for an end by domestic policy considerations play for huge role otherwise you would be accused of weakness in getting a model in order to act otherwise you either have to win overwhelming support or they must be a chance in mentality when people will understand that it's much more beneficial to look at a compromise is awful and to impose your will on everyone. but it certainly takes time to change those patterns of thinking in any country in this case it's the us first and foremost this change should take place in the minds of the ruling elites in the middle of the same silliest phrase i don't think that is the most about i think we've almost come to that we're going to do i very much hope of them which will reach it soon you know if you watched. by see what i'm like in the recess of

the full. moon. oh oh oh oh right. i. i. i. i i. i.

i. i i i . they all told me my language as well but i will only react to situations as i have read the reports so unlike the players i know i will leave them to the state department to comment on your latter point of the month to say that it is secure yet a car is on the docket. thanks joe no more weasel words when you need a direct question be prepared for a change when you throw a punch be ready for

a bad. freedom of speech and little down the freedom to cost. i live on. the street. wish. good luck good.

run i'm a better little. jimmy speak old language. programs and documentaries in arabic in school here on all t.v. reporting from the world talks about six of the i.p.t. interviews intriguing story for you. in trying. to find out more visit our big dog called. nobody chooses to make holes nobody chooses to me and my sorrow. isidro's four of us showed up at. six pm get out six beat six. they were in. school for. me the class people.

were against. it's tough to think about all of them comes of it. and to know that many may not have only been lost to choose should never be any but they're also due to foreclosures that never should. is he. he. says.

but empathize having been through a very similar situation myself i'm prepared trying to actively support through this interview with an open ways use the snowden supplied wiki leaks founder julian assange praises as a hero the man who blew the whistle on the u.s. internet snooping program as he talks starting about one of the biggest leaks in history. and government on arrest rages in turkey with police showing brutal force in a crackdown on activists his prime minister heir to one pledges to show no mercy. a stand up capital as protesters and hundreds of riot police in central london marking a week till the g. eight summit results and scuffles and arrests.