welcome. now you've been following the, you are solving the use 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 they fade over 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 grounds 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 committees to listeners. some of the 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 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 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 assignments 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 assignable nor ability. 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 and when in fact is 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, criticism, 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 alexi maloney 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. 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 keys 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 there were all of you by the end, the one that had to discuss 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 biden's 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 go 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 u. s. awesome 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. and would 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 how to balance these 2 agendas. it's not easy, it's present. tampa didn't manage to accomplish this mission and to do still an open question whether his successor present biden will be in a position to do that. now speaking about the, the rush and 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 desantis, 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? 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 your 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 ortho 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, may be 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 science coming from the bite in administration and biden's friendly, think times it seemed as if they were viewing russia as these go, hooligan, a large rogue stake a disruptor. not worthy of serious engagement or even gratifying attention, whereas beijing was seen as a serious near peer opponent. why that was a bite in meeting with fujen before his biological. i'm at the, she's in pain while it's up to biden, to answer this question, but my personal day is that indeed china is too perceived as the major phone until the united states or

is a distraction or off season, an irritant. and it's better to deal with russia 1st in order to be better prepared if we're dealing with bay gene. i think that by doing 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. it is 11 to an important player in europe. so i think that annually button illustration starts to appreciate the role that most of place may be. you know, they believe that most 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 jean. because moscow is

more than economic competitor of the united states. rush and 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 cost can all 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 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 serve as to 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 ultimately about russia in the united states, or is it about the united states and china and russia serving simply as this trail 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 sheets deal, lo fi and it will be the case for a long time. on the other hand, you, 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 add these particular juncture is motivated to subscribe to be strategic culture. so kind of, ah, you know, a country, we refuse the policy or did you guy solutions. and that bought 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 anyone even china. no, no, 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 g, a problems in the china to build up. russia still has spectacular military technical capacity, which it might use to shine in the region sudden, gibson, technological development. the miss miss missile 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 mr. to to gotcha police to louis from could, can each other than the remain russell. but i hope so,

but over the over the book or just the motion learning studies in the course. procure, mrs. mr. bob rhodes. i position me. we think he might be a soldier because of the boot she's wearing your twitched up took a puzzle, was on the shore. so please please. ah, me the

news the me 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 receiving in those consultations or other tongues 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 that most hopes to get to content shorter.

what we need is to re invent 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 a very, very complicated task, because we have to keep in mind very many independent variables, including militant technology development, including the nuclear power progress include in a dual use technologist. so the new start agreement is extended to for another 5 years, but we shouldn't full 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 on

the better. and he's another outcome of the geneva talks is a variable agreement to deal with cybersecurity. re china 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 16 critically important factors that you think 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, will be can 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, toro 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, 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 would stop your any efforts 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 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 this juncture. but

to get them back to a 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 for minute joint task force on cybersecurity in 2017. when the put in met the term on the margins of the g. 20 summit in hamburg. and tom 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 today, if i read the decision, say, engineer or a correctly it seems that the united states. so find that i got denied 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 on, in this regard of nukes, because the united states is a delighted country. and of course, present biden has to face fears 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 deck, used by didn't 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 in geneva. one of the good things about biden is of course, that kids are very shrewd and experienced auditions the politician. he spent many, many years on the hill. he knows how to work with the congressman. unlike his predecessors, he's a part of the washington political establishment. so probably hugo handle is 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 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 rather 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 d. c. a status from around himself. while i think this is something that he is capable of doing a 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 american grid 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 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 in their other flexible political system. 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 of times, 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 the bottom of the administration is quite blatant in instrumental ising ideology to get what it's once. i mean, all these talk about democracy is being in an existential battle with a talk. chris's which have been that it's main rhetorical frame so far. 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 lead, the, the greatest fight of, of today is the fight order and chaos. and we believe for please the in the can and believe that the if you up support him kill is 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 its 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. for the, you're getting into the board. the vouchers, 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 of their own. usually they're owned by the american indirection to russia, but anyway, we have to leave it there. i greatly appreciate you 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 join me every thursday on the alex 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 the

ah, me always be polite, never engage with an aggravated or confrontational office. don't get into any conversation or start answering questions. just ask for an attorney. to survive and interrogation, you've gotta be ready. you're 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,

you are. if you're poor, you got 2 eyes and 2 ears and one mouth. so you should be seeing and hearing a whole lot more than you're saying if you don't take that advice, usually going to dig yourself a whole us unavailable possibility of another round of sanctions against russia just 4 days off of the food and bought in the summer in geneva, spot of the optimistic messages from both sides also in the stories that say the week most go grim records as a daily number of cobra cases source on all time 5 cities man has announced the raft of new measures and devastating floods. leave one person dead and dozens injured in, southern rushes from the province of proteins. the state of.