would be march your politics aside and even agreed that they bear the responsibility for managing the relationship between the countries. 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 the making by kids. how do you or staff is significant the significance of these interactions in the grounds scheme of things? well, i think it's fair to say that in the relations between mosca and washington,

nothing serious happens without some meetings. traditionally, some meetings have been a major catalyst for any positive change in the 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 suddenly his mosque was indispensable. you have to build relations with leaders the year. so they put together some meeting. and after the summit meeting, basically as things 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. not only 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 vulnerability. do you think that was the indeed the case with the bite and ministration, but it was perhaps vulnerable because of this need to appear a task with which is when in fact it's actually counterproductive for reaching any you know, stuff then disagreement with, 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 there right from the former supporters of his predecessor on the healed, 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 the top which was very clear in explaining caesar had lights. he can discuss any international problem with president biden. but what he clearly does not want to discuss with us here is domestic cuffy. so there isn't that way. she understands. domestic affairs of there are some feathers. i will ask you about the russian poster 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 buttons, the one that had to just cross the strategic stability and cybersecurity recruiting and then the other one that had to stand off american journalists implying that he wasn't tough enough with put in which of these 2 by them do you think will prevail

when he returns back to washington? it's hard to tell, of course, but i think that by didn't would like to get to deal with on certain issues. it doesn't 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. the u. s. are some 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 isn't the irritant. i think that biden will do whatever she 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 u. s. l. customer spent, so he cannot avoid these potentially very devise of issues that he mentioned in his press conference after the meeting with wooten in geneva. and i think the art is call to balance these 2 agendas. it's not easy, it's 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 speaking about the, the rational post her right now, i had an impression that the russian side was approaching into 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 desantis,

it wasn't defensive. i felt like it was more about didn't has done the appearances . do you agree with that and then saw, is it janny and given how many frustrations there are in moscow with the u. s. as policies good, i agree, you know, with your 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 particular situations. so if you don't have anything to hide, but 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 already on the table. now you said recently that judging from the initial side, the signs coming from the bite in administration and biden friendly, think times it seemed as if they were viewing russia as they go hooligan, a large rogue stake a disruptor. not very, the all theory is engagement or even gratifying attention, whereas beijing was seen as a serious near peer opponent. why then it was

a bite in meeting with fujen before his biological i'm. it's been a huge pain while it's up to biden, to answer this question, but my personal date is that indeed china is to perceived as the major born until the united states. russia is a distraction that isn't an irritant, 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 done my list to enroll in the north korean nuclear issues i. it is definitely an important player in europe. so i think that

really an inspiration starts to appreciate the role that most place may be, you know, they believe that most quiz 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 will be gene. because moscow is more than economic competitor of the united states. russia, 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, moscow is, or is least, it might be easier to deal with that. well, most definitely in the far west 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 stated that the russian military rad increases dramatically when it serves, or if it serves as what they pulled the force multiplier for china. as far as the americans are concerned, do you think all these talk with the russians about strategic stability? if alternately about russia in the united states, or is it about the united states in china and russia serving simply as a trial you for a more difficult conversation? well, i think it's more complex. so whereas, if you dig 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, i believe that the united states is primarily concerned about

growing 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 liberty easier to talk and to goody china. these particular juncture is motivated to subscribe to this strategic culture. and so kind of a country, we refuse the policy or strategic isolation. and that brought us to the united states. and they are concerned about the going capabilities of china, especially again in your eyes pointed out, especially used by china as a multiplier your 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. no, no, of course, you know, it does mean that will become just and appendix to china. but russia might go china to address some of the g problems in the china's military build up. russia still has spectacular military technical capacity which it might use to shine in the region certain, gibson, technological development, talk to miss miss miss on fields or the navy or menu

knowledge as well. mr. carter, we have to take a very short break right now, but we'll be back in just a few moments stage. and the me are always people. i never engage with an aggravated or confrontational office. don't get into any conversation to start answering questions. just ask for an attorney. i survive and interrogation. you've gotta be ready to stand your ground. definitely don't want to be going to throw in a jump. so one cups. you're more likely to walk free. if you're rich and guilty when you are, if you're poor and you got 2 eyes and 2 ears and one mouth. so you should be seen in here and a whole lot more than you're saying. if you don't take that advice,

usually going to do it yourself a whole so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy foundation, 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 to finance all through. i'm john did a little about money laundering person to see this this is a good sir. well, we have our 3 banks all set up here, maybe something in europe, something in america, something overseas. and when i let you never know all these banks are complicit in their property, we just have to be mccall. hey, i'm ready to do some serious my laundry. okay, let's see how we did. well, we've got a nice luxury watch for max and for stacy. oh,

beautiful jewelry. and how about automobile? again? format. you know, money laundering is highly illegal. dopey, across spots. the me i welcome back to the parts 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 time it was an agreement. you create some sort of a mechanism for bilateral consult patients. and in that area, is there anything of substance that moscow is really looking towards achieving in those consultations or others talk themselves simply a mechanism for engaging with americans?

i don't think it's only about engagement. i think it's about a number of specific outcomes the most hopes to get to cut it short. so what we need is to re, in advantage, come to all, 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 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 verbal 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 the subject and in geneva by them handed, which in a lease, 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 used 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 6 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 and risk. 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 matter of concern for the company of concern. or would that put a stop to any efforts to reach any meaningful agreements in bilateral relation? well, i think that it will be close to close to stop him major contact with the united states because definitely these sanctions will bite quite

painfully. but as i said, you know, i don't think that by them is entertaining this idea of these 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 a 4 minute joint task force on cybersecurity in 2017. when the put in met tampa on the margins of the g. 20 summit in homework and our job promised to launch some a group 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 the 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're doing. and there wasn't will be today. if i read the, this isn't say engine, you're a correctly, it seems that the united states. so find that i got denied that it is, 1st of all a bilateral problem. the trash 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 may be 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

the piano was in moscow, believed that meeting was a victim of its own success. because the, you know, 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 on, in this regard of 96? because the united states is a delighted country. and of course, present biden has to face fierce opposition from there. right, and 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 after come think. so they would accuse bite enough for being to solve the indecisive,

of like an a clear agenda. not off enough with him and definitely they will try to sabotage some of the agreements that have been reached. geneva, one of the good things about biden is of course, that he's a very shrewd and experienced politicians politician. he spent many, many years on the hill. he knows how to work with the congressman. unlike his predecessors, he is a part of the washington political establishment. so probably human can live better than the top deed trauma had a very messy administration and 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 sun is coming from the democratic corners, not from the republicans whom you mentioned. you know, that would be quite logical to expect that. but from, from the democrats themselves. well, there were in washington that the, by the team itself is divided. that there are hawks and doors the. the good thing about by doing that is that he's a 2 player that he's trying to find common denominator. other than to impose individual we'll on the everybody else. so i think that definitely you know, the he is in

a better position to unite the dcf status from around himself. well, i think this is something that he's capable of doing well. no, i'm not sure that can unite the american society now on the eve of this meeting, both leaders, both by them, appealed to national interest in order to justify 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 americans? good for the world. and this is something that the russians clearly cannot agree with. i mean, ultimately it's 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 interests? my take is that the united states has entered a very difficult, painful period in its history. it has to moderates ambitions and

we'll have to masturbate 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 in their other flexible political system. so i remain moderately optimistic about the u. s. 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 this art. and hopefully in the end of the day, we'll manage it. and finally, if i may, i don't know, she's where the river that, but i think the bottom of the administration is quite blatant in instrumental ising ideology together. what is once, i mean, all these talk about democracy is being in an existential battle with a talk. chris's which has been, it's main rhetorical frame so far. how do you think the kremlin should play around or leverage this narrative? or 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 at least the in the government believe that if you are 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 shina of for, for the louis daughter italian isn't. but what about saudi arabia? what about to a key? what about the not liberal countries, which are too important for the united states? well, mr. for the 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 mean, they were very, very indignant about bringing up any of the, of the concerns that they're usually thrown by the american indirection to roger.

but anyway, we have to leave it there. i speak to appreciate you being with us today. thank you . thank you, and thank you for watching hope to hear again next week on well, the far as the me the me ah, these are the 4 people who pull the trigger. i survive something on survival for. one of the hardest things that i had to say was not having a face at a low expectation that 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 the, the we stopped stories here, when are you into national the 1st us russia summit of the biden presidency in geneva, seeds vladimir putin and joe biden agreed to return their respective ambassadors to their posts. vladimir putin also as caution about the post summit by that they're all tied. i have no illusions following the meeting, neither old nor new. there can't be any illusions at all. moscow sets a grim record as the daily number of covert 19 cases source to an all time high. city's mayor has announced a raft of new measures a region of central italy gives the green light to

tourists to have.