the word in general what do you think of that. he told us nothing we didn't know before that i think everybody has long been aware that signals intelligence is about surveillance of individuals and organizations is becoming a global phenomenon in the context of combating international terrorism and such methods are generally practicable the question is how well those security agencies are controlled by the public with 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 it's exercised within the boundaries of the law that regulates intelligence activities it's all right but if it's unlawful then that's bad. about what the committee went through obama said rather than go to any of that you cannot have a hundred percent security while maintaining hundred percent privacy of of data

should have known to you yes you can i'd like to reiterate 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 but it can and it should i'm sure what it involves. he immediately that you probably know it isn't snowden also syria or turkey there's been talk news in russia basically if you're divorced everybody has been talking about it but if you sell the mrs you would mail the person explain to the bank when you spoke to the press after a ballet performance but if your questions still remain i wondered about the religious aspect of your divorce and this is something many people are questioning at the moment you know what you know the truth because i. know 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 our 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 political affiliation. well thanks for that much as for the religious aspect of marriage there is none because we've never weighed in church you didn't read you know i see time you said as a mom until his deputy editor in chief with. some you have the microphone to thank you margarita actually i only have occupied my present position for a week before that i spent twenty years working as a reporter i've traveled particularly all over the world including many conflict areas that i haven't lost my sense of danger in the process before and that's why i'm still alive thank you yes thank god god bless you i said russell thank you very much it was good my question concerns conflicts too i mean to ask you about these drones. aerial vehicles. because you know if america employs drones to leave or air strikes almost on

a daily bases this happens especially often in pakistan and if you other countries 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 is formed with massive casualties among civilians so on one hand drawings aren't efficient in combat but on the other hand will all aware of the collateral damage to the public in many countries and i found this shocking and there has already been a motion for imposing an international ban on using drills for the 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 it all 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 have mentioned to people too and i think they understand all these things but you still need to combat terrorism i know they're currently debating this issue in the united states and a notion is being advocated increasingly often within the u.n. framework that you need to put drones and to control you need to lay out certain rules of engagement in order to prevent or minimize collateral casualties 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 however there are other threats to for example they are presently debating the option of using non 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 get spotted

by a nuclear power early warning system how should that nuclear power react to a missile coming its way how are they supposed to know whether this missile comes with a nuclear warhead or not what if the missile impacts right next to its border or inside its territory do you realize how perilous that can be. or take the notion of low yield nuclear weapons do you realize how badly that can blur the very back down trees of using nuclear bombs or how low the threshold might sing for authorizing such a strike can you imagine the possible implications where the limits for lowering that threshold and who setting them there are many threats in the world of today and there is only one way to address 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 behind us out on the who's the president of one of our most popular shows across talk peter has worked with r.t. since its very beginning he will be speaking in english and i will translate the

question for you thank you for the my question being very short here it seems like we live in the age of opposition. and we have the arab spring and 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 here ok and the role of mr couldn't. 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 and they should get elected into legislatures 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 law in the interests of the majority that's the way it's done in the us and that's the way it's done in russia truth be told we're criticised for that but when the same thing happens in the us it's considered to be noble 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 to growth america. but i wish you do the right thing everyone must be treated in the same fashion because these two situations are identical because i'm the only differ. it says 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 forge 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 green he is my long standing associate we see eye to eye on many vital issues of russia's development of 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 leave 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 toughest 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 percent two. an increase and it's up five point nine percent in the first four months of this year already they argue that salaries are growing faster than labor efficiency is less which is bad and dangerous for the economy there's no denying it and they're absolutely right that 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 this 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 publicly they're 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 brought their countries to the edge of bankruptcy but whenever they talk of lower salaries people are up enormously poor so it would have made more sense to increase your social spending and debt more gradually also it would have been great for the authorities if they had been someone who could have told them about it i mean if i don't think our social spending is too high i don't think we increase pensions salaries and social benefits too much but generally mr cooper and 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 interests at heart will be in demand. the next question is from mcdonough the preventive on. moved into presenting up to several years of reporting far. too many with a. most of the high tells about how person a financing washed up in the show i thought we had a chat question is

a follow up to your previous reply concerning principles and a principled position i would like however to apply these notions to the in. 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 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 even hundred percent of the mainstream focuses on suspicions but at the core as i see it is the relationship between the u.s. and iran iran is partially to blame for the tension 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 u.s. they believe they have a higher responsibility which is actually just a bigger 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. ok when i didn't want gangs punish the u.s. or abroad. i don't know i thought when people see that i tough guy. with a night of thought was more than a little cross that you a response to your question could take hours it's so complex but i will try to be as concise as possible and the first i've repeatedly voice rushes official starts with an 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 region on i'm told are reigning in part is about that and that's why iranian threats made towards neighboring countries in particular israel threats that israel can be destroyed absolutely unacceptable this is counterproductive you're good at it but then the from what i'm going to hear this is not a proper had wrote the iranian president nor. great thing you could it was

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 courting to 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 when you look at it 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. this. but you know they are not the only only one misstep in notorious streaming across the in this and they do it to tackle the domestic political issues when there is an external enemy eight 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 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 and 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 as you know russia built the boosh air power plant in iran we've completed this project and prepared to 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 regulation of options 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 will also remain aware of the concerns that other states and the international community has concerning full compliance with these rules. you know what. maybe wasn't actually the best of us the level can i clarify something the thing is i was asking you not only about the u.s. iranian 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 right on the eve of the. in meeting with us obama you are pushing me to make some serious statements and it's a very important lesson if the country thinks it has more rights than others you know the whole story is 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 when this is the most important thing for her 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 for one and i mean that's why there is international law to create a level playing field for everyone. you know starting with the u.s. is a very democratic state there's no doubt about that and it originally developed as a democratic state when the first settlers set their foot on the continent life force them 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 with that in mind we should not forget that america's development began with a large scale ethnic cleansing unprecedented in human history i wouldn't like to delve so deeply into it but you're forcing me to do it. when europeans 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 yet you take the destruction of carthage by the roman empire the legend has it that romans plowed over and sowed the city with salt said that nothing will ever grow that europeans didn't use the

salt because they use the land for agriculture but they wiped out the indigenous population then they were slavery and that's something that is deeply ingrained in america in his memoirs us secretary of state colin powell revealed how hard it was for him as a black man and 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 now take this sort of we know a lot about starlin now we know him is a dictator and a tyrant but still i don't think that in this spring of one nine hundred forty five stalin would have used a nuclear bomb against germany if he had one he could have done it in nine hundred forty 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 thousand nine hundred five when 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 state and was very close to defeat so there are big differences between us but it's quite natural. people with such differences to find ways to understand each other better i don't think there is an alternative moreover it's not by chance that russia and the us forces alliance in the most critical moments of modern history that was the case in world war one and world war two even if there was fierce confrontation our countries united in the face of a common threat which means there is something that unites us particular must be some fundamental interests that bring us together that's something we need to focus on first we need to be aware of our differences but focus on a positive agenda that can improve our cooperation. and much of the relationship with the us are important issues for our network largely because americans make up most of our or dns if you're simply look at our websites had

statistics you'll see that most of our audience comes from america so anything related to the u.s. is a key topic for us and here is honest to see attack in there her especially coming from new york for this meeting she works at our u.s. based channel r.t. america which caters to an american audience and focuses specifically on american issues is that right on this to see if. new york about bustling in. live with. 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 international law and you know when i meet american politicians and russia experts these days i often hear them acknowledge off record that the magnitsky act has effectively come first place the jackson event a commandment which demonstrates the same outdated approach towards russia as we

know when barack obama met with mr amid that if during the summit and so last year he made some hints saying he would have more flexibility after election. but with but it was early but i see you guys just don't get off the banks do you. know this is the last question i promise. about my him to marry a little easier for him to cooperate with russia however that is not what we're seeing today we've already touched upon many of our remaining issues with the u.s. why do you think the reset has not worked and can it ever take place in the first place as an equal recite procope process where is it the trash is always expected to sector feiss national interest. in specialty should national press any state pursues its national interests in the u.s. is no exception what's unique here is that the collapse of the soviet union left america is the world's single leader but there was

a catch associated with it in that it began to view itself as an empire at its core but an empire is not only about foreign policy 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 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 in the first they still want to do it and second they can only take steps that if it for an empire domestic policy considerations play a huge role otherwise you would be accused of weakness 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 for compromises than 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 elite in the mcgraw the same sillies phrase i don't think that is impossible i think we've almost come to that point i very much hope will reach it soon which. by see what i'm like you missed the point none of us started this whole glowingly. live. play. lists. live . play

. play. play play. cluck. they all told me my language as well but i will only react to situations as i haven't read the reports so i'm letting the police or the know i will leave them to the state department to comment on your latter point of the month to say it's

a hit list or k.l.a. car is on the docket else i. think you know more weasel words when you need a direct question be prepared for a change when you have to punch be ready for a battle freedom of speech and a little bit on the freedom to cost. i . will. just be.

misleading. come out of my. eyes when he says you cut it in the way to tell. you. that. you. think you mean i think. seriously. what. you.

say here to his head was a new. one what if you only knew. if you will. be. fs.

i would rather ask questions for people in positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on r.t. question more. cia

whistleblower edward snowden vows to fight extradition from hong kong in his first interview since being forced into hiding or lifting the lid on a massive secret u.s. surveillance program. activists say the brutality of turkish authorities is intensifying as the prime minister gets set to meet protesters who've endured almost two weeks of heavy policing. greece shuts down its main t.v. and radio broadcasters as part of cost cutting measures thousands were sacked call it a blow to the box.