the me a lot of welcome to all of the politics. it's still primarily the reality of alpha males, especially when it comes to interactions in russia and the united states with thousands of nuclear ship rockets pointed at one another. with this week's while actual summit in geneva, logic put in, and joseph biden seems to have 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, what the discount that i'm now joined by on the personal director general of the russian international affairs council. mr. cord, nothing's great to see you again. thank you for talking john, welcome. now you've been following the, you are still in the us russian relationship since the very beginning of your

analytical 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 assess it's significant the significance of these interactions in the ground came of things. well, i think 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 i states and you, president comes to power. he makes a couple of da statements 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 on that 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 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. 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 jim is exposed to severe, not necessarily fear, criticism, not only from the right, from the former supporters of his predecessor on the field, but also from the left, from the reform of being in 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 raleigh 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 lights. he can discuss any international problem with president biden. but what he clearly does not want to discuss with he's us peer is domestic cuffy. so there are,

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 him. 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 i would like to get to deal with in 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 biding, 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. 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 u. s. l. customer spent, so he cannot android these potentially very devises 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 so is it jenny? and given how many frustrations there are in moscow with the us 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 in 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, assign is coming from the bite in administration and biden friendly. think times it seemed as if they were viewing russia as the global hooligan, 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 she's been paying while it's up to biden, to answer this question, but my personal day is that indeed china is to perceived as the major opponent will be nice. states

is a distraction that isn't an irritant, and it's better to deal with russia frost in order to be better prepared for dealing with bay gene. i think that bite in my hope that russia can be helpful for the united states. and again, this time it done my list, they're all in the north korean nuclear issues i. it is 11 to an important player in europe. so i think that really bad and inspiration starts to appreciate the role that most of place may be, you know, they believe that most chris punchin 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

molten 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 it's least it might be easier to deal with than b g. 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 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 called the force multiplier for china. as far as the americans are concerned, do you think all these talk with the russians about strategic stability?

isn't the ultimately about russia in the united states, or is it about the united states and 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 dig some specific areas of the current global military balance are actually steal fire and it will be the case for a long time. on the other hand, i give you that the nice dates, 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 goody china. these particular

juncture is motivated to subscribe to this strategic culture. and so i kind of you know, 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 up 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 for to anyone. even china? no, no. of course, you know, it does mean that there will become just and appendix to china. but a ration 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 you might use to help china in the region. certain gibson, new technological development. the miss miss miss fields were the navy you or are many knowledge is well, mr. gordon, we have to take a very short break right now, but we'll be back in just a few moments station. the me

ah, me for me. or i welcome back to names apart with somebody for to know the director general of the russian international affairs council, which of course and before the break, we touched upon strategic stability. one of the outcomes of the geneva summit 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 shaving in

those consultations or other tongues themselves? simply a mechanism for engaging with them. eric and i don't think it's only about engagement . i think it's about a number of specific outcomes. the most co hopes to get to content shorter. what we need is to re, in advantage control, to come up with a new model of strategic arms control, which would reflect you realities of 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 better. and he's 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 change any grimace at moscow on that subject. and in geneva by them handed, which in a lease. so i think fixed in critically important factors that you think should be protected from any cyber attacks. d as a step towards meaningful discussion or in the country a probably you for yet another round of sanctions. while i was speaking 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 cic, 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 so for the u. s. economy, so i think that, that they're biting, 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 effort 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 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 are there are some side there aid this topic many, many times and we got close to for minute joint task force on cybersecurity in 2017. when i put in met the term on the margins of the g. 20 summit in homework and 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 to give the united states on the us territory. that's why we don't need any asians with you. you should just stop your malign activities or you should stop doing what you're doing. and there was will be today . if i read the decision, say, engineer or a card, actually 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, 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 nukes, because the united states is a delighted 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 after i

think. so they would accuse, bye to know if would be to solve the indecisive, of electronically 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 auditions politician. he spent many, many years on the hill. he knows how to rock with the congressman. unlike his predecessors, he is a part of the washington political establishment. so probably hugo can live better than the top deed trauma 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 sun, it's 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, he's 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, wallclear's book by an appeal to national interest in order to justify something. but i think the problem there is that the americans are still defying, dives, 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, if possible, without americans adopting a somewhat humbler definition of the national interest? my take is that the united states has entered

a very difficult and painful period in its history. it has 2 moderates ambitions, and we'll 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 in their flexible bullet consistent. so i remain moderately optimistic about the u. s. ability to come to grips within you reality still, 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, sometimes it is not because we've got to leave in these controversial situation and

all of us have to learn humility 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 where the river that, but i think by 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 how do you think the kremlin should play around or leverage the narrative or shouldn't even pay any attention to it? well, because because it's so 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 are support him, kill is direct 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 still attended isn't. but what about saudi arabia? what about to a key? what about are the not liberal countries which are too important for the united states? well, mr. for the you're getting into the board about which apparently, 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 me the me ah, back guys or financial survival guide. housing bubble. oh, you mean the downside? artificially little mortgage carried away was trying to report

one of the worst ever mass shootings in america was in las vegas in 2017. the tragedy a close a little of the real left vegas, where many say elected officials are controlled by casino owners. the dangerous shooting revealed what? the l v m p d really is. and now it's part of the spin machine to the american public barely remember that happens, that just shows you the power of money and las vegas, the powerful showed their true colors when the pen demick heard the most contagious contagion that we've seen in decades. and then you have a mayor who doesn't care. so here's caroline goodman, offering the lives of the vegas residence. to be the control group, to the shiny facades conceal a deep indifference to the people vice gonna be saved if they were to take an action. absolutely, keep the registering and keep the slot machines doing. this is

a money machine is a huge cash register that is ran by people who don't care about people's lives being lost. the ah us manuel is the possibility of another round of sanctions against russia. just 4 days after the food and bought him some geneva, i didn't want to be optimistic messages from both sides. also in the stories that shaped the weak moscow, that's a grim record of the daily number of cobra cases thought to an old time high. the cities mad that else the raft of new measures devastating floods, link one person dead to missing and dozens injured in southern rushes from. you probably already declare a state of emergency correspondent reports from the region. so this.