how long will this commitment last want to discuss that? i'm now joined by the person, the director general of the russian international affairs council. mr. cord. nothing great to see you again. thank you for talking john. welcome. now you've been following the, your sodium, the huge russian relationship since the very beginning of your career, i'm sure you've seen quite a number of such leaders. some of that can be cold war days. they've dealt literally with the fate of the world. i don't think that could be sad about the junior meeting, although i think there was also a little bit of this history in been making by kids. how do you or staff is significant the significance of these interactions in the ground came of things. well, i think that it's fair to say that in the relations between mosca and washington, nothing serious happens without some meetings to listeners. some meetings

have been a major catalyst for any positive change in their relationship. they have elections in states and you, president comes to power. he makes a couple of da statements towed to moscow, then he consults with his experts with the system. so it turns out that unfortunately in certain ways, mosque was indispensable. you have to build relations with leaders the year. so they put together, i'm at the meeting. and after the summit meeting, basically it seems to start moving diplomats military bureaucrats. experts get together, come up with ideas, sometimes agree on some on something. sometimes they disagree about some,

it's are indispensable. now on that you from this particular meeting, there was a lot of talk on the american side about the need to approach pushing from a position of strength. i think perhaps strength was emphasized way too much for it to be taken at face value. i think when people put such an emphasis, it's usually a sign of vulnerable. if you do, you think that was the indeed the case with the bite and ministration that it was perhaps vulnerable because of this need to appear a task with when in fact, it's actually counterproductive for reaching any disagreement. whereas with moscow, well, the problem, one of the problems on the us side is that the president has to keep in mind his domestic audience. and of course, by didn't, is exposed to severe, not necessarily a fear, criticism, not only from their right from the former supporters. so he's predecessor

on the field, but also from the left, from the reform of being his own party. so whatever he does, whatever he says will be scrutinized. so there are certain issues that biden has to bring to the table with food in the, even if he doesn't believe that can be cooperative on these bonds. so it's practically unavoidable that any meeting between biden then would include the human rights agenda and the fate of alex in a lonely and the genital integrity of ukraine. and the vance in bel, i was on all of these issues. it is very difficult to reconcile the positions of the 2 men. right,

and i think that up which was very clear in explaining caesar. ed lawrence, he can discuss any international problem with president biden. but what he clearly does not want to discuss with keys us peer is domestic cuffy or so there are there is that you have the stance. domestic affairs of the feathers. i will ask you about the russian post tra too, but let me 1st squeeze in one more question about by them because i don't, i don't know if you would agree with that. but i have a sense that there were almost 2 biden's, the one that had to describe the strategic stability and cybersecurity recruiting. and then the other one that had to found off american journalists implying that he wasn't tough enough with food. and we just need to bite and do you think will prevail when he returns back to washington? it's got to tell of course, but i think that by didn't i would like to get to deal with him on certain

issues. it does not mean that you would like to have and your, he said, it's not possible at this stage, but he would definitely like to cut down the risks and to reduce the costs of an uncontrolled u. s. our competition, especially in the military field for i think that to burden understands fairly well, that the main strategic a diversity of the united states is not russia. it is china and russia is this section. russia is in the irritant. i think that biden will do whatever he can in order to have his hands free for dealing with me. jean. but of course, as you rightly pointed out, he has to keep in mind the us public opinion and the positions of the us

customer center. so he cannot avoid these potentially very devise if issues that he mentioned in his press conference after the meeting with wooten in geneva. and i think the art is how to balance these 2 agendas. it's not easy to present tampa, didn't manage to accomplish this mission and it is still an open question whether his successor present biden will be in a position to do that. now was speaking about the, the rational post her right now. i had an impression that the russian side was approaching to some it's not from the position of strength, but rather from a position of confidence including self confidence. it was, it wasn't trying to impress, it wasn't defensive. it wasn't defensive. i felt like it was more about didn't, has done appearances. do you agree with that? and so is it jenny?

and given how many frustration there are in moscow with the u. s. as policies? i agree with you assessment. i think that the position of the russian side was that essentially the ball is in your court. in the us court. we need our best. we came up with the many proposals. we do not try to surprise you to present you with something that you do not expect. we are open to your ideas. but i think that what they deny on their side is that it is asha who has to change her behavior. i think the strong perception of president putin is that russia doesn't have anything to change. he can explain why most acted this way or another in particular situations. so if you don't have anything

to hide about, he expects the united states to demonstrate a little bit more flexibility, maybe a little bit more imagination in order to get back to some of the proposals which all read on the table. now you said recently that judging from the initial side, the sign is coming from the bite in administration and bite in friendly. think times it seemed as if there were a viewing russia as they go hooligan, a large rogue steak a disruptor. not worthy of serious engagement or even gratifying attention, whereas beijing was seen as a serious near peer opponent. why then it was a bite, a meeting with 210 before his biological son. she's in pain while it's up to biden. to answer this question,

but my personal day is that indeed china is to perceived as the major phone until the united states is a distraction, or actually isn't an irritant. i and it's better to do with russia 1st in order to be better prepared for dealing with aging. i think that by didn't might hope that russia can be helpful for the united states. and again, this time it might play a certain role in the north korean nuclear issues i. it is 11 to an important player in europe. so i think that generally, an installation starts to appreciate their old that most place may be, you know, they believe that most chris punch above its weight. but even if it does,

it means that you cannot ignore it. and on top of that, i would add that to some extent, it is easier to fix simulations with moscow than would be gene. because moscow is more than economic competitor of the united states. rush in the united states are not competing for the same markets or for the same sources of materials. they do not have territorial disputes. so in a way, most cool is, or at least it might be easier to deal with that. well, most definitely not as far as washington. i cannot make my but when it comes to military, my, i think i'm going to russia would argue that it has even a certain degree of superiority. and in fact, in the latest grad assessment reported by the us intel community,

it was specifically said that the russian military rad increases dramatically when it serves, or if it serves as what they call the force multiplier for china. as far as the americans are concerned, do you think all these talk or with the russians about strategic stability? isn't the ultimately about russia in the united states, or is it about the united states in china and russia serving simply as a trial you for and more difficult conversation? well, i think it's more complex. so whereas, if you take some specific areas of the current global military balance or actually steal fire and it will be the case for a long time. on the other hand, you the you, that the united states primarily concerned about going military capacities of the people's republic of china. after all,

they more or less know how to deal with russia. we have a common strategic culture with the united states, which makes it little bit easier to talk and to a goody china at these particular juncture, is motivated to subscribe to strategic culture. so kind of you know, a country we refuse the policy. all of us continue guy solutions and that bought us to do not it states. and they are concerned about the going capabilities of china, especially again in your eyes. the point that out, especially even used by china as a multiplier does here even rio because from what i'm understanding over the russian post you're russia is not so eager to offer it as an

ex delivery force to anyone, even china. you know, of course, you know, he does mean that will become just. ringback and bandage to china, but russia might go china to address some of the r g. a problems in the chinese military build up. russia still has spectacular military technical capacity, which it might use to shine in the region. sudden, gibson, the technological development of the miss. miss miss fields were the navy or many knowledge as well mr. courts and we have to take a very short break right now, but we'll be back in just a few moments station. the me

ah, the these are the 4 people who pull the trigger. i survive something and survive. football was the hardest things that i had. the face was not having a face adult by patient life accepted, accept the fact that i made that appointment. we had no fears. del change pretty fast for shots. different stories behind the bullets. the me or i welcome back your names apart with somebody for

to know the director general of the russian international affairs council. which of course in the before the break we touched upon strategic stability. and one of the outcomes of the geneva summit was an agreement to create some sort of a mechanism for a bilateral consult patients. and in that area, is there anything of substance that moscow is really looking towards achieving in those consultations or others tell themselves simply a mechanism for engage aging with them eric and i don't think it's only about engagement. i think it's about a number of specific outcomes that most hopes to get to gotten shorter. what we need is to re invent control to come up with a new model of strategic arms control, which would reflect you. reality is all the militate

balance of the 21st century. and this is a very, very complicated task because we have to keep in mind very many independent variables including militant technology development, including the nuclear power was progress include in dual use technologies. so the new start agreement is extended to for another 5 years, but we shouldn't fool ourselves thinking that it's sort of time to come up with a new model of arms control the sooner we start working with americans on these one, the better. and she's now another outcome of the geneva talks is a variable agreement to deal with cybersecurity, which i know surprised many of your colleagues in moscow because washington quite persistently refused to andrea and janny grim and said moscow on that subject. and in geneva by them handed, which in a way,

so i think fixed in critically important factors that he thinks should be protected from any cyber attack. d, as a step towards meaningful discussion or in the country a probably you for yet another round of sanctions. well, 1st of all, we can look sanctions. i think that unfortunately we're likely to see more sanctions. the question is, what sanctions we are going to see? what they should be concerned about in the cabinet is if the united states goals for something bigger like tauriel sanctions, sanctions against the russian energy sector or the sanctions against the russian financial assist system, deputies such sanctions will create additional low uncertainties underneath. so for the u. s. economy, and so i think that the buying,

the mutation will be reluctant to go that far. but if it does go, it becomes a natural concern for the current concern, or would that put a stop to any effort to reach any meaningful agreements in bilateral relations? well, i think that it will be close to close to stopping major context with the united states because different these sanctions will bite quite painfully. but as i said, you know, i don't think that by them is entertaining this idea of this juncture. but to get them back to your question, i have to say that i was as many others. i was surprised to see such a twist in the us position because if you recall, there are some side there aid this topic many, many times. and we got close to forming

a joint task force on cybersecurity in 2017. when i put in met the term on the margins of the g. 20 summit in hamburg, and promised to launch some, a group for such a group. and later on, when she got back to washington, he basically adopt the idea. the traditional us position has always been that it is russia, o e. she's using cyber weapons against the united states on the us territory. that's why we don't need any negotiations with you. you should just stop your malign activities, or you should stop doing what you are doing. and there was will be a park today. if i read the decision, say, engineer or a correctly,

it seems that the united states. so find that i know that it is, 1st of all, a bilateral problem that can also have its concerns. and 2nd, that it's not that simple that we don't do need to have a group of professionals, of experts of diplomats to assess these problem. and maybe to come up with the conclusion that would assume both sides well, you mentioned previous may be transmitting with an in house and in 2018. and i know that many analyst mosca believed that meeting was a victim of its own success. because the, you know, the, the warm, personal dynamic between the 2 leaders essentially killed any prospect of the reach agreement being realized. do you think this meeting in geneva is vulnerable. busy on in this regard, there are certain areas because the united states is a divided country and of course,

present biden has to face fierce opposition from their item from the left hand. of course, conservative republicans near cones will use against biden the same tactics that publicans had to see common from democrats, south to come think so they would deck used by to know for being too soft, indecisive, of, electronically. agenda. not tough enough with him and definitely they will try to sabotage some of the agreements that have been reached geneva. well, no, they would think about biden is of course that kids are very shrewd and experienced politicians, the politician. he spent many, many years on the hill. he knows how to rock with the congressman. unlike his

predecessors, he's a part of the washington political establishment, so probably he will handle it better than the top deed. tom had a very messy administration and you know, people within his own team who were sabotaging his actions. and i heard some of analyst and moscow say that one of the big appeals of bite and for the kremlin, is that he can actually personify washington, this one center of decision making that would not sabotage its own decision. is that actually a fair assumption given how many efforts to undermine or prevent this meeting, we saw on the eve of the stomach coming from the democratic corners, not from the republicans whom you mentioned. you know, that would be quite logical to expect that. but from the, from the democrats themselves. well,

there were in washington the news that the vital team itself is divided. that there are hawks and doors the. the good thing about by doing that is that he's a team player that he's trying to find a common denominator other than to impose individual, we'll on the everybody else. so i think that definitely the he is in a better position to unite the dcf status from around him. so i think this is something that he is capable of doing well. no, i'm not sure that can unite the american society. now on the eve of this meeting, wallclear's book by an appeal to national interest in order to justify or something . but i think the problem there is that the americans are still defying. dia, national interest in a very universal way. what's good for america is good for the world,

and this is something that the russians clearly cannot agree with the ultimate, based at the, at the root of all the current tensions between our countries. do you think any progress is possible without americans adopting a somewhat humbler definition of the national interest? my take is that the united states has entered a very difficult, very painful period in its history. it has to moderated submissions and will have to emancipate itself from these universalism, which is not likely to work in the future. it will be difficult. i think we might see some setbacks, but americans leave it in their other flexible political system. so i remain moderately optimistic about the us ability to come to grips within your

reality steel. i think it will take time and definitely for men, americans, it is all on the natural to believe that what is good for the united states is good for the rest of the human kind. sometimes it is the case of times. it is not because we've got to leave in these controversial situation and all of us have to learn humility and knowledge of the united states. i think that to many other leaders should also master these art. and hopefully in the end of the day, we'll manage it. and finally, if i may, i don't know where the river that, but i think by them and the administration is quite bleed turns in instrumental lising ideology to get it. once i'm in the old days, talk about democracy is being in an existential battle with a talk. chris's which have been, it's main rhetorical frame. so how do you think the kremlin should play around or

leverage this narrow approach? shouldn't even pay any attention to it. well, because because it's all narrative for the cabinet, the, the, the, the greatest fight of, of today is the fight order and chaos. and we believe for least they in the can and believe that if you up support him, kill us directly or indirectly implicitly or explicitly y'all on their own side of history. so we can offer our own ideological framework, which can compete with that on the united states. but i think that you are right, that the united states will have to moderate ideological little. because if it does not, it will have problems with many of its partners and allies all over the world. you know, it is easy to criticize a rational china of, for,

for the louis dolton italian isn't. but what about saudi arabia? what about to a key? what about, are there not liberal countries which are too important for the united states? well, mr. for though you're getting into the board about which turns, i mean, judging from the american media is not allowed to any russian speaker anymore. i'm in there were very, very indignant about bringing up any of the, of the concerns of their own, usually thrown by the american indirection to russia. but anyway, we have to leave it there. i greatly appreciate your being with us today. thank you . thank you. thank you for watching hope to hear again next week on well, the far as the me the me

i ah do it again. wish there was a spirit supplies. you guys actually got into an uncovered face, men's clothing and shoulder stuck. it's a kind of gun feminism. its name is how camino above put a human level. some of the whole lot of that of us is, was a little of our on our job. but you know, the ones that gave me she lives in one of the most dangerous and patriarchal provinces of afghanistan cost lacey, which time i miss dash, oh no, no, i shall do that. i'll get you into it. i'm glad you got the notes that she

does. her best to fight for women's rights. i want to tell you. i wonder what you guys, donors, you know, what i do? i know that i'm going to the system here by her nickname, king was i got it doesn't really go on that i what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy plantation, let it be an arms race is on often very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very political time. time to sit down and talk

the the initial top stories, the 1st us russia summit of the biden presidency in geneva sees the myth who turned in joe by didn't agree to return their respective ambassadors to the post. and also as caution about the post some bilateral ties. i have no illusions following the meeting, neither old nor new. there can't be any illusions the tool. moscow sets a grim record as the daily number of coven 19 cases source to an all time high cities. man, the rest of new measure.