thinking by kid, how do you assess, is significant the significance of these interactions in the grand scheme of things? well, i think that it's fair to say that in the relation between mosca and washington, nothing serious happens without some meetings to listeners. some meetings have been the major catalyst for and you positive change in the relationship. they have elections in states and you present comes to power. he makes a couple of da statements, some 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 a 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. now, on the you from this particular meeting, there was a lot of talk on the american side about the need to approach put in 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 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. he's domestic audience. and of course by didn't, is exposed to severe. not necessarily a fear can be a decision, not only from the right, from the former supporters. so he's 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 glued the human rights agenda and the fate of alex in a lonely and the janitorial 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 lawrence, he can discuss any international problem with president biden. but what he clearly does not want to discuss with us peer is domestic cuffy. so there are, there isn't that way. she understands domestic affairs of their 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 they were all to bite. and then 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 then do you think will prevail when he returns back to washington it's hard to tell him of course, but i think that by didn't would like to go to deal with in, on certain issues. it doesn't mean that you would like to have in your head. 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. as in competition, especially in the military field, for i think that to binding understands fairly well. that the main strategic a diversity of the united states is not russia. it is china, and russia is this section or is in the irritant. so i thing 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 let the customer spent. so he cannot avoid these intentionally very devises 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, it's present. tampa didn't manage to accomplish this mission and the do still an open question whether his successor, president 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 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 defense. if 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 us 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 signs coming from the bite in administration and biden's 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 summit been she's been paying while it's up to biden? to answer this question, but my personal take is that indeed china is to perceived as the major phone until the united states. russia is a distraction that isn't an irritant, and it's better to deal 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 done my list to enroll in the north korean nuclear issues

i. it is left and an important player in europe. so i think that generally is about an inspiration starts to appreciate the role that most place may be, you know, they believe that most chris punch and 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, moscow is, or it's least, it might be easier to deal with. well,

most definitely not as far as washington when it comes to can all make my but when it comes to military, my, i think i'm going to russia would argue that it has even this certain degree of superiority. and in fact, in the latest read 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 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 is alternately about russia in the united states? or is it about the united states in china and russia serving simply as a trial used 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 shade and it will be the case for a long time. on the other hand, you the you that the united states is 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 add these particular juncture is motivated to subscribe to this strategic culture. so kind of you know, a country, we refuse the policy. all of us continue guy solutions and that brought us to the united states. and they are concerned about the going capabilities of china,

especially again in your eyes. the point that out, especially used by china as a multiplier. does 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. you know, of course, you know, he does mean that will become just. ringback and bandage to china, but a ration might go china to address some of the r g, a problems in be china's military build up. russia still has jackson or military technical capacity, which it might use to help china in the

region certain, gibson, new technological development. the miss miss miss fields were the navy or many knowledge as well as her course. and we have to take a very short break right now, but we'll be back in just a few moments station. the me or the the, the, the join me every thursday on the alec simon show. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politics sport. business. i'm show business. i'll see you then me. ah,

phoenix does actually got an uncommon face, men's clothing and shoulder stuck. it's a kind of gun feminism. its name is how camino bought it up, put a human someone with the whole mother that it was. it was a lot of up on the job, but you know, no one is it okay. she lives in one of the most dangerous and patriarchal provinces of afghanistan. cost like she which time i miss that. sure. no, i shall do. but i haven't set up a new kid. i'm glad you got me knows that she does her best to fight for women's rights. i am. i just want to get that done as you know what i do. i know that the season here by her nickname, the king was i got a reco,

much other that was really good news . ah, the ah, ah, the me

or 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 journey with some it was an agreement to 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 taught 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 cool hopes to get to cut and short, 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 military balance of the 21st century. and this is very, very complicated taska 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 veterans. he'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 answer and janny grim and said moscow on the subject and in geneva by them handed, which in a lease, so i think 16 critically important factors that he thinks should be protected from any cyber attack d, as a step towards meaningful discussion or in the country appro you'd for yet another round of sanctions. while speaking of 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 have goals for something bigger, like sick tauriel sanctions, sanctions against the russian energy sector, or the sanctions against the russian financial assist system. devons is such

sanctions will create additional low uncertainties. and 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 company is concerned. or would that put a stop to any efforts to reach any meaningful agreements in bilateral relations? well, i think that it will be close to close to stop him 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, 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. 8 this topic many, many times and we got close to 4 minute joint task force on cybersecurity in 2017. when i put in met 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 analysts most believed that meeting was the 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,

loss of no risks because the united states is a divided country. and of course, present biden has to face a few years 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 to come sink. so they would accuse by, you know, for being too soft, indecisive, of, electronically, agenda not off enough with him and definitely they will try to sabotage some of the agreements that have been reached in geneva. one of the wood 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 congressmen. unlike his predecessors, he's a part of the washington political establishment. so probably he will handle it better than the top deed trunk had a very messy administration and people with him, his own team who were sabotaging his actions. and i heard some of the analysts 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 corner,

not from the republicans whom you mentioned were you know, that would be quite logical just like that. but from the, from the democrats themselves. well, there were in washington these, 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 common denominator other than to impose individual, we'll on the everybody else. so i think that definitely, you know, he is in a better position to unite the dcf status from around himself while 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 invite an appeal to national interest in order to justify their summit

. 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. 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 and somewhat humbler definition of the national interests? my take is that the united states has entered a very difficult and 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 you 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 the end of the day will 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 blay, terms in instrumental lising 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 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 they in the can and believe that the 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 or actually china 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. course, 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 they're owned by the american indirection to roger, 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 and well, the far as

me the me i so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have is 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 critical time time to sit down and talk these are the 4 people who pulled the trigger. survive something on survival. one of the hardest things that i had, the face was not having

a face at a low 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, the us son feels the possibility of another round of sanctions against russia just 4 days after the biden. some of that in geneva, and in spite of the optimistic messages from both sides also in the story that shape the weak moscow sets a grim record. the daily number of covert 19 cases stores to an old city mirror has amongst the rough, the new measures a region of central italy wants to welcome tourists to receive brushes, button the t. v shows stuff. this might a lot of approval so far from the european medicines agency, a regional counselor.