whom press conference was this he pointed out, this is about practical, straightforward no nonsense. decisions that we have to make her not make. we'll find out within the next 6 months to a year, whether or not we actually have a strategic dialogue that matters. will find out whether we work to deal with everything from release of people in, in russian prisons or not. we'll find out whether we have a cybersecurity arrangement that began to bring some order. you look the countries that most are likely to be damaged. failure to do that, are the major countries. for example, when i talked about the pipeline that cyber hit for 5000000 ransomware hit united states, i looked at him. i said, well, how would you feel if ransomware took all the pipelines from your oil, feels sure it would matter. this is not about just our self interest.

so at a mutual self interest, i'll take your questions and as usual, folks, they gave me a list of the people i'm going to call on. so jonathan associated press. thank you, sir. us intelligence has said that russia tried to interfere in the last 2 presidential elections, and that russia groups are behind hacks like solar winds. and some of the rants were attacks you just mentioned booting and his news conference just now accepted no responsibility for any misbehavior. your predecessor opted not to demand a prudent stop these disruptions. so what is something concrete, sir that you achieve today? to prevent that from happening again and what will the consequences you threaten whether i stopped it from happening again? he knows i will take action. like we did when this last time out, what happened was we in fact made it clear that we were not going to continue to allow us to go on. the end result was we ended up withdrawing and they went and

joined ambassadors. we closed down some of their facilities in the united states and cetera, he knows their consequences. i look one of the consequences that i know, i don't know, i shouldn't say this unfair of me. i suspect you may all think doesn't matter. i'm conference matters to him comp matter to him and other world leaders and big nations. his credibility worldwide shrinks. let's get this straight. how to be in the united states reviewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries. and everybody knew it. what would it be like if we engage in activities that he's engaged, diminishes the standing of country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains standing as a major world power. and so it's not just what i do is what the actions that

other countries take in this case, russia that are contrary to international norms is the price they pay, they are not, they are not able to dictate what happens in the world or other nations of significant consequence. i. e, the united states of america, we want to mr. president, a quick fall in the same theme of consequences. you said just now, do you spoke to him a lot about human rights? what do you say would happen if opposition later election? divani dies, i made it clear to him that i believe the, the consequences of that would be devastating for russia. i'll go back to the same point. what do you think happens? what he's saying is not about hurting and evolving as all the stuff he says to rationalize treatment and evolving and then he dies in prison. i pointed out to him that it matters a great deal when a country in fact. and they asked me why i thought there was important to continue

to have problems with the president of syria. i said, because his violation international norm was called a chemical weapons treating can't be trusted. it's about trust. it's about their 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. national norms is 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 not want to happen with us. not happening with other nations. and he kind of talked about that, didn't you today about how the need to reach out other countries to invest in russia. they will, as long as they can,

are convinced that in fact the, the violations, for example, the american businessman, who was in house arrest. and i pointed out, you want to get american business, the invest, let him go change the dynamic. because american, businessman, they're not, we're ready to show up. they don't want to hang around and moscow. i look guys, i know we make foreign policy out to be this great, great skill. and somehow is sort of like a secret code tract. all foreign policy is, is a logical extension of personal relationships where 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 benefits of flow from them. it hurt you. that's not

a satisfying answer. biden said he didn't bay russia, you know, by the way, that was a joke. that's not true, but my generic point is it is, it is, is more complicated. davis chang. i thought i saw david areas. thank you my present in the run up to this discussion, this been a lot of talk about the 2 countries spilling down into a, into a cold war. and i'm wondering if there was anything that you emerge from in the discussion that made you think that would take my son anything it would make you think that mister putin has decided to move away from his fundamental role as a disruptor. particular disruptor of nato and the united states. and if i could also just follow up on your description of how you 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 answer your 1st or 2nd question? first, i pointed out to him we have significant cyber capability. he knows he doesn't know exactly what it is, but a significant and in fact, a violate his basic norms. we will respond cyber. he knows the sideway number 2 i, 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 you rhetorical question. you've got a multi 1000 mile board with china. china is moving ahead. hell bent on election as they say. seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world,

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 or the united states. i don't think it's about, as i said to him, i said your generation of mine were about 10 years apart. this is not a combine moment, is used to say back in the sixty's, united states like less hug and love each other. but it's clearly not in anybody's interest. your countries are mine for us to be in a situation where we're in a new cold war. and i truly believe he thinks that he understands that. but that does not mean he's ready to quote figure, residual, lay down his arms and say, come on. he still, i believe is concerned about being quote in circles. he still has concern that we in fact are looking to take him down, et cetera. he still has those concerns,

but i don't think they are the driving forces to kind of relationship. he's looking for with united states. jennifer jennifer jacobs. thank you mr. president. i'm, is there a particular reason why this summit lasted only about 3 hours? we know you would maybe a lot it a 4 to 5 hours. was there any reason it ran shorter also did the president couldn't said that there were no threats or scare tactics. issue, do you agree with that assessment, that there were no threats or scare tests tactic? also, did you touch on afghanistan in the safe withdrawal of troops? yes, yes, yes, and yes, let me go back to the 1st part of the reason it didn't go longer. is when the last time too, had just spent over 2 hours in direct conversation across the table going in

excruciating detail. you may know time i don't, i can't think of one. so we didn't need, as we got through when we brought in the larger group part, our defense, our intelligence and our foreign well, our, my foreign minister was in for a minister. my secretary state was with me the whole time our ambassador and center brought everybody in. we had covered so much. and so there was a summary done by him and by me and what we covered lab are off and blinking talked about what we covered. we raised things are required more amplification or made sure we didn't have any misunderstandings. and so it was kind of after 2 hours there, we looked at each other like ok. what next? what is going to happen next is we're going to be to look back, look ahead in 3 to 6 months and say, did the things we agreed to sit down and try to work out didn't work?

do we, are we closer to a major strategic stability talks and, and progress are we further along in terms of go down what that's going to be the test. i'm not saying here saying because the president and i agree that we would do these things and all of a sudden is going to work. not saying what i'm saying is, i think there's a genuine prospect to significantly improved relations between our 2 countries. without us giving up a single solitary thing based on principle and or values. no, no, no, no, there is ever no threat. there were, as a matter of fact, i heard he quoted my mom and quoted other people today. there was, it was very, as we say, which will shock you coming from me some colloquial. and we talked about basic basic fundamental things. it was a, it was and you know how i am. i explain things based on personal basis. what happens if, for example,

and so there are no threats just as simple assertions made and know, well if you do that and we'll do this when i said we're just letting him know or i stood what i thought we could accomplish together. and what, in fact, if it was, if we were war violations of american sovereignty, what we would do when he asked us to buy that. he said that he hopes that we're able to maintain some piece of security. and i said that has a lot to do with you. he indicated that he was prepared to quote, help on f canister animal. go into detail now and help on, on the, on the ran and help on in return we told what we want to do relative to bringing some stability and economic security or physical security to the people of syria and libya. so we had those discussions emission

thanks so much mr. president. did you say that you didn't issue any threats? were there any ultimatums made when it comes to ransomware and how you measure? especially when it comes to these working groups on, on russian meddling and on cybersecurity. well, is going to be real easy either for example, on, on cybersecurity or we're 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? what can we commit to act in terms of anything affecting the violating international norms int niggley respect for russia? what are we going to agree to do? and so i think we have real opportunities to, to move. and i think that one of the things that i noticed when we had

a larger meet is that people who are very, very well informed, started thinking, you know, this is, can be real problems. how does that ranch for outfit were sitting in florida made and took action as i said on their, their, their single lifeline to their economy. oil devastating. and they're like, you could see them kind of go, we do that, but whoa. so it's and everybody's interested these things back and i will see though, what happens to these groups we put together the 3rd one. yes. mister president, one president burton was question today about human rights. he said, the reason why he's cracking down on opposition leaders is because he doesn't want something like january 6 to happen in rush. any also, it doesn't want to see groups formed like black lives matter. what's your response to that? please? my response is kind of what i communicated,

but i think that that's ridiculous. comparison is one thing for literally criminals to break through court and go into the capital, kill a police officer and be held accountable. and that is for people objected in marching on a capital one said you are not allowing me to speak freely, you're not allowing me to do a, b, c, or d. and so they're very different criteria. steve, steve, on writers present. sorry, president putin said he was satisfied with the answer. you, he about your comment about him being a killer. could you give us your side on this? what did you tell him? he satisfied. why would i bring it up again? you talk to him, 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 it's about. so i virtually almost almost anyone that i would work out an agreement with and affected the american people's interest . i don't say, well, i trust you, no problem. but see what happens. you know, is that all expression goes the proof of the put it in eating. we're going to know surely. igor, radio, free europe or radio liberty. mr. present. i don't want to go on a shade you can. can you see? yeah, yeah. yeah. so i think, you know, i ducks in civil society and the priests are free press continue inside russia. yes . for example, radio free europe. yes. radio lever at the voice of america. karen time, tv channel where i work brand for in agents and several other independent media. so we have essentially being forced out in russia

30 years after president. he has been invited asking my question is after your talk with president putin, how interested do you think he's improving the media climate in russia? i wouldn't put it that way. terms of improving the climate. i would in fact put in terms of how much interest does he have in burnish, in russia's reputation, that is not to do it 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, he's interested in changing the nature of closed society or close governance 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 good bog. i told him i read a couple, i read most everything he's written in the species main and, and i've read a couple of very good biographies which many of you have as well. and i think i pointed out to him that russia had an opportunity that brief shining moment after gorbachev and after things began to change drastically to actually generated 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. prudent decide 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 commissars trade through to the, the revolution, the russian revolution. and to where they are today. and i think that is clear to me, and i've said it that i think he decided that the way for russia to be able to sustain itself as great quote, great power is to in fact, unite the russian people on just the strength of the government. a gover 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 2nd guess whether it could have been fundamentally different. but i do think it does not lend itself to russia. maintain itself is one of the great powers in the world. i

think in this conversation today, did you, in terms of the red line that you laid down, is military response. an option for a ransomware attack and president who had called you in his press conference, inexperienced person. you famously told him he didn't have a soul. do you now have a deeper understanding of him after this meeting? thank you very much. i'm in the military. no, we didn't talk about military, you know, for me to have dialogue and also with what you said at nato, that the biggest problems right now are russia and china. i have spoken many times about how you've spent, perhaps more time with president she than any other world leaders. so if they're

going to become a time where you might call him old print, an old friend and asked him to open up china to the world health organization. investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of cobra, 1900 simplest, a renewal there. while we're not all french, it's just pure business. so i guess my question would be, you said that you're going to press china, you signed on to the g 7 communique that said you the g 7 were calling on china to open up to let the investigators in. but trying to basically says they don't want to be interview with any more. 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, very forthcoming nation. that they are trying very hard to talk about how they're taking and helping the world in terms of coven 19 vaccines. are trying very hard

look certain things and 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 i did discuss, as i told you in you and g 7 and what 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 early on the next pandemic, and have a mechanism by which we can respond to it and respond to it early. it's going to happen. it's going to happen. so we need to do that. thank you the a little well, there we go. joe biden, the u. s. president, wrapping up his press conference and wrapping up events from what we're going to hear from those involved with the highest level in the summit between joe biden and flooded me at food and plenty to one part. yeah, i think generally,

i think it was very quickly just comparing the tone. i did think that the president spoke very differently about one another. i mean, the president putin is always quite respectful in his language. that's why he will, he will always say, for example, our american colleagues are american partners. he's very specific. and i found that perhaps biden was a bit more aggressive in his rhetoric to us. again, he was going for that angle of, you know, i said this and i told him, i know on some times and i gave him that list. you know, they, 16 critical infrastructure that upon, you know, condition cyber attacks should have happened on that definitely was a sense that he was trying to show that he led to the conversation that he was from a position of force i thought provide that i go from bill though, if i could have $0.50 for every time dialogue, instability had been nation by both of the presidents. well, i'd be a reasonably wealthy man, and they both talked

a lot about wanting to be the importance of talking. joe biden said he, oh, we can't stress enough that he the importance of speaking face to face when it comes to settling these type of things. international diplomacy is not this big difficult game. it's actually pretty straightforward and ultimately it's straightforward. and as far as joe biden sees it is that the pumping friends about looking after your own self interest. now we're going to listen to a few. somebody from the, from the various press conference is going to start off talking about media. joe biden said the radio free liberty must not be declared for an agent as they have been in russia. let's see what the president had said. how could i be the president of the united states of america and not speak out against the violation human rights? i told him that unlike other countries, including russia, were uniquely a product of an idea. i also raised the ability of radio free europe radio,

liberty to operate, and the importance of a free press and freedom of speech. what was also appended to that was the fact that he had to mock chrissy is and i was dna. i think there were a couple of practice use in that including including the creation of an idea. i know, unlike russia and other countries, a dream, the dreaming. yeah. what's all said things that he did up to read his original part from a prompt us that was like when the parts and sort of giving and then said was what bite and of course said about free press about being registered for an h. and i'm pretty sad. ok, i recognize your concerns thought shout out to all t. what everyone. he said, well, hang on a 2nd on you all see something from us that you've already done to all those. this is what patient set about. we actually have 2 media outlets that are broadcasting for foreign audiences. that's all t and before that the u. s. declared them foreign agencies and deprived them of

their accreditation. so what we did was retaliation at the same time of year by the, by all requirements of the european regulator, it is registered in the appropriate way. although they faced problem with, with regard to the hiring of personnel and financial transactions. and i will get some more sound bites from the various press conferences in just a moment. we're going to take a little bit of a break for some analysis right now though, and hearing from the non join by again, by lucrative. they're the hardest working independent journalist in geneva right now. it would seem you're back with those again. what was your take away from joe biden? well, the medicaid back, that's what he said. picked it up by this time i think out of my mom and for the rest on that was to be expected and i think it was not to cress, if towards the middle it was not bad at all. he had good words, was very careful when he was asked about the killer aspect. he laughed again

and died and go any further. and so i think it's not bad at all. i think it's the beginning. today is the real beginning of the organisation of cyberspace. i can attack your companies, your organizations, your, your water systems and, and all pipelines you can do it to me to both were very king distress that it wasn't the state carrying out the cyber attack. but both leaving it open to say could be the state, you know, if we, if you pushed the wrong way. and so the police also with a crucial difference between all the discussions from the 2 presidents about side to face was about the we talked about how putin had said thought the top attacker in terms of cyber is the united nation location. exactly of cool thought was absolutely wilson raised by john list in the room. it was raised by biting himself . was that anything between the 2 conferences what you thought that they weren't exactly telling the same story?

of course, i think they were telling the same story in their own words and, and the american story is so far fetched at some point that, you know, ridicule doesn't kill, obviously not in geneva today. but i think, for example, the europeans had her last week and week before that america was spying on mrs. merkel. one am i wrote my call saying that things that are they are staying on spying on every day on there, alive. and they have the cheek to say here, that russia to suit the spy. come on. and also, i mean, what did you think about his tone in general? did you think that he was optimistic? do you think the he was trying to project a certain image? i think it was optimistic again to me. some of the cold war, 36 years of senate ship are presenting, delaware, makes him what he is. again, a politician of the cold war knows history. well, it was at ease when you come to negotiations about disarmament, that will be,

that's on the agenda. you mentioned it. so it's i think it's, it's very good the way you express themselves in the sense that we are not into confrontation by lateral strategic dialogue. we're going to little more about talking more when it comes to weapons. do you think we're going to see perhaps the, those working for both the russian defense ministry and those from the department of defense in, in united states getting a few more miles maybe friday there until 2024 to check that the present agreements continued or new, fresh and developed they will do with i'm sure that was the day to organize the agenda for the future. well, i mean, they will to just point out that, but we're a couple of things that they did agree on. they were talking about tearing corridor and syria. we were talking about that earlier. they didn't really go and he said, i'm not going to go into detail about the specifics about it. they said that on when it comes to iran, they kind of had a broad consensus. probably the consensus said that you can deal would be good,

you know, the roster is a big sign of it. and in fact, the helsinki, of course, some, it's quite multi chastise trauma believing it. so it definitely seems that i think they agreed to cooperate on the things that were manageable, the human rights of course, that in both in that respect, stable quite very i think they were very stuck in their position. it's easy for a job. i don't, of course, to bring out human rights. i mean, doesn't need to do anything just beyond the attack. that's all. and what strikes me is the few words he mentioned about of guns that, you know, it's not russia's fall if america has to go on tip toe. now. it's because the, the tyler bonds and others are fed a fierce fighter and, and they are pushing the americans out. you know, so mister putin at good words to say, we'll do our best to help you get out and, and maintain peace after your departure.