more so it's essential that we have some limits and some insight into each other's arsenals from these weapons now this you can be sure signed a decade ago by. different presidents i'll be a close allies of the currently based it's locked the russian and american nuclear arsenals at some of the lowest levels in decades and back then every member it was and major achievement is it still in a chair meant to recommit now or could we as well as a russian an american but rather as representatives of humanity who have it reasonably asked that it more. well given that the fed the. 2 governments the us quickly under the trump administration really didn't engage in this issue until close to the end of the administration and in a serious way we're happy to be able to extend this but clearly i think both sides of make clear they would like to go further that there's been enough developments

in the last decade enough changes and in weapons systems and doctrine in the situation globally that we need to work on a new treaty going forward but this is a good way to maintain stability while we do that now georgia text ability an arms control assets share and complicate it abstract topics that it's heights you relate to ordinary people why they should care about it imagine you are let's say on a plane or at a local bar and somebody asks you to talk about it in simple terms what we say why is this a topic worth paying attention to well basically you know what surprises this is not based both countries have an insight into each other's arsenals and limits so that we don't get into a war by accident and especially a nuclear war so we have enough control that you know it would have to be an intentional act by both countries rather than some sort of mis ignores or misperception and so this is the idea is to kind of put the brakes on things kind

of a buffer so that we don't you know get into a situation and neither of us wants just by misperception or. poor understanding of the other side you mentioned that nobody likes surprises and i think that's actually the most stable area of cooperation between our countries specially given they have a current. state of relationship why do you think that is. because it's so important i mean i think both countries recognize it's importance to the security of their people and this is you know this goes back through the cold war i mean never since we had the 1st strategic arms treaties almost 50 years ago now they've kind of been insulated from the ups and downs in the relationship even at the worst times and in the relationship we've managed to keep talking about this and that's that's a good thing that's important. because who are asked that i want to take that gives me another chance to go back to george orwell's famous athlete hero that just before the cold war began in late magic 45 and in that ass

a goal that you and the atom bomb he makes that very persuasive argument that it is a pretty hip if nature of the atomic bomb that provides its magic power at you know it because it's so expensive it would not be used but also because it's so expensive you need to review this be the number of nuclear warheads to you and you know at a reasonable minimum what do you think that reasonable needle is for the current state of affairs from both sides of the deployed in your prayer or have you are welcome to some extent it depends on what you know that they have to move in sequence because a lot of the i mean some of the weapons are basically targeted to destroy other weapons on each side so the fewer weapons you have the fewer targets you have to hit but i think a reasonable goal that was talked about a little bit under the obama administration was you now have basically about 1500

deployed warheads words are actually on submarines or in silos or. planes and people are talking to maybe go into like a 1000 would be sort of the number 4 but the numbers and the numbers are only so much as there are also other aspects in terms of what kinds of weapons what kind of warning and so on this is important to stability is not just the numbers you mentioned the president obama added. after 2011 ad president obama was willing to push those reduction and even further to which most object it because russia saw and still sees it had been nukes as part of its broader security and at that time it was growing increasingly concerned about other american the weapons systems primarily the potentially offensive nature of the u.s. missile defense. given that russia seems that have developed or at least it claims that it has developed a new generation of weapons do you think it would be more comfortable with the

costs now. but that's a very good question i mean i think they should be because in part of russia's concern at that time was particularly at the conventional level of the u.s. and all these long range conventional weapons systems that russia did not happen that not developed but as we saw for instance in the syria conflict the russians able to send missiles several 1000 miles these conventional missiles so in that sense russia doesn't need to rely so much on the nuclear weapons as it felt that maybe it felt they had to a decade ago so there is that there's also a whole number of new russian nuclear weapons systems that people have probably seen that is very kind of exotic weapons nuclear powered weapons and so on that need to be taken into account in any you know new treaty by the way i know that if you get it back you were quite skeptical about the russian claims of having developed this nuclear power it nuclear article flying cruise missile. i think it's

known as very best league in russian as high fall in english as it is that we have some very fabulous reports of its existence including reports of accidents. just skeptical about the russian capability in in this field as you were a few years ago well in russia is obviously very talented and designing missiles and weapons systems and this particular weapon system of iss had a lot of problems and accident so i would hope that russia would not move forward with it and having a basically a nuclear you know weapon in the sky is probably not in anyone's. interest in terms of just the missile itself rather than you know. the weapon as an attack that exists even when you're testing these things as we've seen they can be pretty dangerous so i don't think it's a. i would hope russia would do would not move forward with that system well how do you have the same hope for the united states because the assumption in moscow is

that the americans are working on their pretty similar systems as well not that i'm working on we're certainly working on other systems but you know about 4050 years ago we were we. looked at the idea of nuclear powered missiles and we kind of rejected it for number reasons including safety and and so on so i think that particular system we're not doing but i was at both sides are moving forward with all kinds of new systems you know i personally questions that you've probably heard about and so on so you know there's that's why we have the talks to try to put some limits and some predictability on these systems now i want to go back to one more question syria george orwell got to say he makes another case that the history of civilization is largely be he syrian opens i don't know if you want to make any sort of private productions but how do you think the development of these new generation of fans can add change. you know their way relieve or it please the way

we negotiate with one another. well i think i mean in some senses not the nuclear weapons i mean used there obviously are new weapon systems but we kind of know what the rule at least when it comes to the u.s. and russia we have pretty established traditions now and and history and how we deal with these weapon systems i think the ones that are actually more challenging are some of the links between these weapon systems and things like cyber attacks or artificial intelligence quantum sensing there's all kinds of very exotic new technologies that may either affect these weapons systems directly or people may feel like the u.s. under the trump administration said you know if you have a very serious cyber attack will feel that maybe we have to respond to that with nuclear weapons and that is in some ways much harder to deal with these problems because you know how do you know where a cyber attack is coming from in a weapon you know it see a lot you know where it's coming from it's pretty obvious but these other ones is a lot of more rounds more and more possibility of confusion the missing the chip

you should you know former russian. former american ambassador and russian michael looked full recently a person who is not previously liked and was going to happen with a. well regarded in washington he recently suggested that russia and the united states should actually include cyber negotiations into these strategic us the ability to go cases because it's one thing well and you play around with the outsides of political credit it's quite another when you play around with the cyber infrastructure of you know any carrier plan do you think that's a wise idea do you think this is something that the american government genuinely would be interested in not in just making it a topic for media consumption but genuine discussions on how cyber should be used and where those red lines should lie. yes i think it's doing interest of both countries i mean during the cold war all countries agreed basically not to

interfere with each other satellites because the satellites were how you would verify these treaties how you would know which weapon systems each country hat of so called national technical means. and you know since so much cyber is now used in the command and control of various weapons systems i think the country should agree on not interfering with those i mean there's obviously going to be a whole lot of other areas people are going to get a fair bit of my post there but i think these are this particular area and how you know the hard part is how do you actually do that and how do you verify cuts it's very challenging but as a principle i think we you know we should have a mutual interest and you know don't if you interfere with the command to control don't interfere with sort of our surveillance capabilities not mr prantera we have to take a very short break right now but we will be back in just a few moments thank you. for.

joining me everything on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to a guest of the well the politics small business i'm show business i'll see that. at the believe it you sneer those who really can surely. take these just be suitably. stored. with that i suppose home you know how distressed by something. you know none of the stupina bill episodes didn't good to see you just you 2 are the disease that think you slither in your force where you could be near must of missed if not thoughts about spirits i didn't do it was more sinister experiment

don't you know the stage you group should those. shows to suppress the ski schumann's for you to post to a place to move to willow's russula little number of story keep lists to the we're but what is. ringback welcome back to all the parts with miles pumper a senior fellow at the military institute of international studies at monterey mr plumper before the break we were talking about. the resumption all the dial up and strategic stability and it has to be said that the u.s. state department has already issued a statement suggesting that they see the menu well over the new start treaty as

it's just the 1st step in that direction but i think what's the most crucial here is not the willingness to your. real it is that dialogue i think the russians have been there ready for quite some time and actually be big zone of discussion and you know last week i had a chance to talk to your the iranian foreign minister survived that he. and he likes to say that the americans have this approach to negotiations what's mine is mine what's yours is negotiable and i think this is something that the russians share to you they believe that the americans in their image go shaking south always strive for an upper hand rather than trying to get your. insurance interests at a balance as a collateral on the deals your ability is that a fair assessment and which forum do you think this dialogue should take rich for which tone which average here. well i mean i think you know i mean i think

mr zarif scum and so with a little bit grain of salt as we say in english. i mean i think you know this is what negotiators do use negotiating to in a way right he's trying to make a comment for russia playing to your audience and trying to appeal to the russian government. you would expect any negotiator to try to speak with the let me know how to make a question about what do you think makes. negotiations successful and it goes to the basics of the game theory whether you want to have you know a win win a proverbial one win or rather the winner takes all and i think there is also a perception here at least in this capital that the americans rarely come to the negotiating table when there are in a strong position and many believe that the reason why the bidens distraction is so eager to relaunch this dialogue with russia's biggest. well some russians believe that they. have this nuclear security over the united states with these new kinds

of weapons do you think that's an exaggeration or do you think this is indeed something that may have encouraged. been your administration to be more. open to. mr putin despite everything that has been said about him i don't think there's any perception united states that russia has nuclear security over the united states i mean i think you know we see there's a fairly balanced relationship. in the nuclear spear and i think why do what you know the by the ministration wants to have negotiations for what we talked about strategic stability they want predictability they want they want to secure situation in europe in asia and with russia and they want to be able to focus on other issues to a certain extent both in the bilateral relationship and more generally so i don't think it's we're now. people are not coming to the negotiations out of some

weakness i mean i think that's a i think you know in terms of what you know negotiating style i would expect any country that's getting into mid-ocean issues to try to get the best the over the country that's why you are a people to negotiate for you well but i mean this is such a special topic it concerns not only the russians or the americans but it concerns humanity as a whole in fact this is something that putin has stressed over and over again to the point of self-effacing actually i mean if you remember at the press conference of hooten at trump after that meeting in the house and he had 2080 and 'd this is all the russian leader talked about by back then it was dismissed as again putin trying to pull trump's strings why do you need to put in an administration now i mean he's still the same he's older and sure they're why is it no longer a problem for them by the administration to just sit down with him at the same table while it was such a huge deal for 4 trump. well i think that you know obviously you know the

domestic political situation the united states and the issues surrounding trumps relationship with russia in the $26000.00 election absent that relationship with russia and that would be more precise but i mean you know that there was obviously a lot of controversy so was that part was was tricky but there was also. you know there was i mean trump's party is had a lot of people who are not supportive of arms control remember john bolton was his national security adviser for some time has always been a skeptic of arms control and there's a some have substantial proportion of the republican party that doesn't really has never supported arms control it's traditionally been more supportive in the democratic party so the fact that the you know democratic administration is more eager to launch arms control negotiations is is not a surprise and it's kind of true to form doesn't it also mean that despite all

their hawkish i would even say belligerent rhetoric about putin in particular that they have more room more freedom more on mental power perhaps even more goodwill ringback to discuss those issues with russia and more specifically one of the ideas that put in put on the table is this summit built the permanent. members of the security council which could provide a rare change of involving china in the discussions on strategic stability and i'm central do you think by the. end that politically or do you think he would be just as excoriated this truck was for you know even thinking about sitting with which in the same table. well i think you're right i mean i think biden does have more political space probably to work with with gooden than than trump did. on the other hand you probably you know i think you've already seen some of the criticism coming from the biden ministration on other issues aside from the nuclear is fear mission

of on the on some of the other concerns so you know i think you're going to see kind of that balance of approaches i mean probably are there on some of the are kind of human rights type issues. and maybe you know more open on the arms control issues i think trying to sort extent kind of disengaged entirely from or largely from. russia issues not on both sides you know kind of pro and con i think there is it also jane your interest to explore this to change except here is the agenda and i can already see 2 sides of moscow trying to see how far they can go old just the other day for them so let's go with that sort of at diplomatic passports with. that russia would be willing to stay and be able and highstreet provided that ad the united states returns to me it was before russia is still fighting you have

bought by that agreement can't use me any ad january aster changing interest for the united states to get at yes i think there could be interested in the united states do that you know the question's going to be sort of a legal technical means to do that and i think that the biden team is supportive of the open skies treaty i think the present president might have made him actual statements during the campaign to that effect now that the u.s. has legally withdrawn from the treaty the question is what's the. legal mechanism that the u.s. could use to get in there there's a number of options including maybe some legislation they could pass they would basically say you know we didn't really. withdraw from the treaty in terms of domestic process he's and the question is you know what does russia except that is sufficient and how do you deal with those issues but i think this is exactly the kind of issue that you should deal with in these kind of strategic stability talks

and that's that's why you talk about it right now that the open skies treaty it was specifically aimed at building trust between russia and the west at a time when. many in the west believe that their russia could gain corporate it into the western system as a junior partner and oversee neither side the reason that anymore is it still worth approaching at the street from the same trust building that perspective or should it be here refrain. well i think it's still a matter of trust and i think the let the u.s. and russia don't and the sense don't need this to see each other's arsenals because we have satellites we've all sorts of other means to monitor each other's weapons this is really a means for european countries to monitor each other keep track of each other and have some say in the process of surveillance so it builds more of

a european kind of whole approach to this rather than just the 2 countries being involved and i think there's a there's a benefit to that i mean that changed obviously because during this period of the treaty nato grew so a lot of the countries that were had a bit on the sort of eastern side of this and were being monitored and on the western side but i think it's still valuable i think it's a good money shipping interdiction that's essentially what you're saying that instead of the reagan era trust and verify we now have 3 more of mistrust and pacified and pacify relates to the europeans who despite the claims that he made us our suspicious of one another. but i think they also want to like everyone wants to have their own say and they don't have the they don't have the satellite and other technical means to do the kind of. looks that the u.s. intelligence community or the russian intelligence community is able to do but this gives them some stake and participation in the process and i think that's good the

more countries that are kind of our allies and be out there judging that everyone is. playing by the rules and securities and hands i think it's a good thing mr palmer i want to ask you about one more treaty which just came into force the treaty on the prohibition of their weapons has already been signed by 84 countries in the end despite this broad or seemingly broad support that reminds me a little bit of the caliber brianna packed all night and 28 which actively outlawed war and obliged that signature east you settle the conflict through peaceful means and yet. about that day came later these 2nd will who are broke out and many of the trees dignitaries including joe many played an active role in it do you think that's an appropriate comparison yes i think there's you picked a good example there i mean it's it's the triumph of good intentions over practicality

i mean obviously none of us want a nuclear war and we would be happier in a world without nuclear weapons but in certain sense if there was no threat of that but they provide a role in terms of as you said earlier in terms of preventing large scale war we haven't the wars going to war in europe since the 2nd world war thank god. i would say nuclear weapons have something to do with that and until other political issues are resolved we're at the kind of peace that we'd all love to see some day that you know doesn't help and it's really doesn't help that the countries that don't have nuclear weapons signed a treaty saying get rid of nuclear weapons i mean is that involve russia or the united states or any of the other nuclear weapon powers now you wrote recently that this treaty on liberal admission of their weapons poses quote a thorny diplomatic challenge for that body and administration. if i understood your argument you suggest that. you know it could complicate

america's sat relationship with its allies because there is some constituency in europe particularly in germany maybe in the netherlands who do want to see those weapons to be banned. do you think that in this regard to which it could be 0 how to bite it because if they do proceed on discussing the strategic sibylla t. agenda then it would be pretty clear that the america's allies why you know the aspirations suits are bad and the nukes perhaps a little bit premature you know definitely that well i think if you look at why this treaty was drafted and then turned into force and they go out of this was kind of frustration by these countries. that you know under article 6 of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty the nuclear weapons states like the united states and

russia are supposed to take steps towards disarmament and since the new start treaty on fortunately there have a middle lot of positive steps in that they met in that area and so i think this is kind of an expression of frustration by these folks and as a primary is that a genuine frustration because i mean that take germany i mean even if they withdraw from. you know even if they sign out to this broad mission treaty they will still be covered by the american nuclear relatives isn't it a little bit about you know having him ok cake and eating it too yes so very much and that's always been. there's always been that issue with with allies that you know that on the one hand they want to be protected on the other hand. they they want to. you know they they want to be not have the sort of they want to feel important. being on the right side of history and sort of the more moral appeal so yes there's a there's a definitely. a bit of counting your cake and eating it too in that situation

that's going on out there that's understandable i guess well anyway mr probert we have to leave it there but they greatly appreciate your sharing your thoughts with us thank you very much thank you my pleasure and thank you for being with us hope to hear again here on worlds apart. part of. the world is driven by dream shaped by one person.

thinks. week here to ask. that i when i learned how to another planet i'm not out of the budget that i got out of the lot of the money that they let me give me. this was a good time to. try to move. mom. no not that i want to get my little body not why not.

why x. channing in the hall people we believe just a little bit here. bottom of my kids i don't want them up with john even a lot of them are going to cut a mother having little because there is a lot of momentum on the little white community old enough to open a pimp i don't want to put out a lot more party with an older mother blow that it. just . flies the progressives of the left wing are failing continuously to impact any social reform that would satisfy their objectives because they refuse to look at the money itself believe in the be out money they believe the central bank they. they believe ben bernanke the they believe jay powell they believe the words coming out of their mouth and that's the 1st fail and then every single fail comes after that that foundational failure to understand the money itself when it's not backed

by anything it's just paper and only a few people control it. from no chance to giving it a shot its western countries change their tune on russia's but make the vaccine off to a leading medical journal publishes a study about its height as you can see we have from the scene of the sun to the back to the down. when you come by seems to know the price and logistics you really know what i believe is the best over to the world and me scientists terms of all to agree. the restaurant resistance french business owners defy the government's ongoing covert restrictions by opening bad doors and serving diners. u.k. food banks not inundated with pleas for help as a growing poverty crisis sees the most vulnerable having to choose between.