that is an important component of deterring and dissuading russia from engaging in that course. at the same time, we have proceeded with providing ukraine with significant defensive military assistance. in fact, in this year alone, more than at any time since since 2014 that continues allies and partners are doing the same. and finally, we've worked very closely with allies and partners to begin to plan for the reinforcement of nato itself on its eastern flank, in the event of further russian aggression against ukraine. all these things to make clear to, to russia, the costs and consequences of, of its potential actions. we think that's the best and most effective way to

convince russia not to engage in further aggression against ukraine. ukraine is a very valued partner of the united states. and other countries in europe as well. but our article 5 commitment extends to nato allies. something that we are deeply committed to ukraine is not, not a member of nato, not covered by the article 5 commitment, but a determination to do everything we can to, to defended and to prevent or to assure aggression directed toward it. and as i said, we will continue all of those efforts in the coming days and coming weeks even as we test whether the path to a diplomatic resolution as possible. and i'm sorry, the 1st part of the question dialogue between the president. oh yes.

what we've agreed today is that we will share in writing next week are our ideas, our response to concerns that russia's raised concerns that we have that we will share, again in writing with russia. we intend, based on the conversation today, based on that, that paper as well as the paper we received from russia to have follow on conversations after that. initially, at least at the level of foreign ministers. and if it proves useful and productive for the 2 presidents to meet to call, to talk, to engaged, to try to carry things forward. i think we're fully prepared to do that. the president biden is met pure in geneva with for president. he's spoken to him on the phone or via video conference on a number of occasions. and if we conclude the russians conclude that

the best way to resolve things is through further conversation between them. we're certainly prepared to do that. then. all right, thank you. so i was wondering if, as you keep coming back for more dialogue, we'll talk the russians. they continue to act, they continue to mass groups and continue to destabilize ukraine. economically it facing a number of hardships do acknowledge the home they have already done, just do their aggressive actions and in ton, why would you consider sanctions at this point that bipartisan support for them in the us, ukraine, of course, for the why not. and then the 2nd question, you said time and time again to the pretext russia gave to their aggression and false. there's no basis. in fact, i'm curious if safety a firm level sits on that you look in the eye and tell you effectively tells you like your face. and if so, why human that with the response why he was with written responses next week. if that's the case for 1st, again,

we're not waiting to take action to counter russia. as i said a moment ago, we've committed more security assistance to ukraine in the past year. i think something like $650000000.00 than at any previous time. going back to 2014, when russia invaded, invaded ukraine were continued for that assistance. we have additional deliveries that are scheduled in the coming weeks. as i noted, as well, we've been engaged in extensive diplomacy around the world rallying allies and partners together in the face of russian aggression against ukraine. yesterday we announced actions against agents of russian influence who are operating in ukraine and who are seeking to destabilize the country. and again, as i said, we made it clear to russia that they would face swift, severe cost to their economy if they move forward with further invasion of ukraine, as well as the reinforcement of natal along its eastern flight.

we engage in diplomacy and dialogue. that's my, that's my job. but at the same time, we are embarked on the path of defense and deterrence. these things are not usually inconsistent. in fact, they reinforce each other. so even as we're talking, if the russians are continuing to escalate and to build up, we are continuing to strengthen everything we're doing in terms of the assistance we're providing to ukraine for its defense. in terms of the work we're doing at nato, to prepare as necessary to further reinforce the alliance and continuing to define and refine massive consequences for russia with our allies and partners when it comes to financial, economic, and other sanctions. so we're, we're doing both at the same time. now, when it comes to the conversations we have,

i think the charitable interpretation would be that sometimes we in russia had different interpretations of history. and i have to say today we certainly heard things that we strongly disagree with in terms of, in terms of that history. but by and large, the conversation was not political. it was a direct business like. and i think in that sense, useful and it's important to test whether we can again resolve these differences through diplomacy and dialogue. that's clearly the preferable way to do it is clearly the responsible way to do that. but it's also up to rush. we'll take the final question from long before i give it a little homework, alter television or to yes, i wanted to to talk about the measures that can be taken to de escalate the

situation. you mentioned them on both sides. if you could specify and again and tell us an idea of the timeline, how soon it was happened, which comes 1st and bigger picture, what do you think the criminal ones current situation. well, that last question is probably just address to president putin because in a sense, only he really knows and i'll come back to that in a minute. ok. but again, as i was saying earlier, i think that as we've looked at what russia has put forward, as we've listened to what they said, as we've consulted intensely among allies and partners, as we've looked at our own deep security concerns about actions that russia takes not only with regard to ukraine, but in other places and by other means in europe and beyond. i think

it is fair to say that there are areas where we believe we can pursue dialogue and diplomacy to see if we can find ways to address mutual security concerns on a reciprocal basis that would enhance security for everyone for, for us, for our european allies and partners and for russia, and again, as i suggested earlier, transparency, confidence, building measures, military exercises, arms control agreements. these are all things that we've actually done in the past . and that if a address seriously can, i believe reduce tensions and address some of some of the concerns. but again, that remains to be seen. whether we can do that in a meaningful way. and again, it depends, i think, on,

on what russia actually wants. that is, that is the right question. and here's what, what, what is striking to be, and i share this with foreign minister lever off today. i asked him from russia's perspective to really try to explain to me to us how it is they see the actions they've taking, they've taken as advancing their stated security interests and their broader strategic interest. because as i said to, to mr. lever off so many of the things that you've done in recent years have precipitated virtually everything you say you want to prevent. before russia invaded ukraine in 2014 season, crimea going into the, the don boss brushes favorability ratings in ukraine were 70 percent.

now the 25 or 30 percent before 2014. before they went and seized crimea and went into the don best support and ukraine for joining nato was 25 or 30 percent. now it's, it's 60 percent before 2014, we had been continuing on the path of continuing to reduce ball at the same time strengthening our forces in europe since the end of the cold war. well, what happened after 2014 is natal felt the obligation because of russian aggression to reinforce its eastern flag. and since 2014 our efforts over many years to convince allies and partners to increase defense spending. well, that's succeeded, but i have to say as much because of russia and the actions is taken as because of

anything we've done. so, based on russia stated, strategic interests and concerns. how has that, how of their actions advanced those constraints? on the contrary, it's gone in the opposite direction from what russia purports to one. and now if russia renews, it's aggression against ukraine. the outcome will be to simply reinforce the very things, the very trends that russia expresses a concern about. so i hope that that's something that mr. lab reflects on, and the president might reflect on as they think about the days and weeks ahead, was the okay. we were listening there to anthony blink in the us secretary state and speaking after his speaking it a press conference after meeting for off the russian foreign minister earlier today in geneva. so let's get more in this 9 cross the picture oliver. he was in geneva

for us today to listening to what's been going on and pizza. i suppose. it is glaringly obvious, that massive differences remain between the 2. the 2 sides must have differences and the boy you're talking about here is diplomacy. and in the diplomatic world, when you've got people talking about franken substances talks with anthony blinking and useful and constructive talks. that was how said love for off describe them. they've got to go down is a victory of sorts. the talks, the basically that they, they are agreement is that they will agree to continue to talk in the future. there is a timeline for that. we'll get to it in a moment. anthony blink can address stuff in his press conference. it's just wrapped up, the us secretary of state said that he held a candid exchange of concerns on european security with the russian foreign minister. he said that in not exchange of concerns that there was no space to

negotiate when it came to ukraine's future on whether it joined one alliance or another, basically. and without mentioning it, definitely, nato is what was being discussed. he also did say that they've made the promises to kiev to nato, into the you, that there would be nothing spoken about any of those organizations or countries without them being in the room. this was very much how the united states is viewing the situation with russia, not how nato is viewing the situation with russia. however, what anthony plan can did say, is that these talks ton carryon can go forward based on the discussions detailed with the russian foreign minister today said that said gala, for all his said in the past and recite again today that russia has no intention of attacking ukraine, but said that all would actually come down to what actions were seen on the ground and that the united states would be looking at any type of aggression. possibly as,

as signs of not you'll stay. what you may expect on an invasion would be viewed as something that could result in a response from the u. s. and from its allies in nato and the european union as well. he said that following his meetings with partners in kiev, also with the, with the representatives of the united kingdom, germany, and france in berlin on thursday. that responses that could be taken would be swift, severe, and united to anything that they saw as aggression coming from russia. however, what he did say is that there is a potential timeline, as i mentioned, for how we can see talks progressing. so gay love role repeatedly mentioned in his press conference that there were, there was a response in the waiting from the united states when it came to what russia wanted

. from these talks, what russia needed from these talks in order for them to continue. that response will be coming from washington to moscow in the coming we come to the blink and confirm body said after that response had been given that there would most likely be more meetings this foreign ministerial level. but if that those meetings went well, you didn't rule out the possibility of that being a repeat of what we saw last summer here in geneva, where president and biden came together for the, the top level summit. and we could well see a repeat of that. no mention of course whether the, the switch city of geneva would be the location, but it has been the destination of choice for these talks so far. go over to what gala for all time to say earlier. ron bo, he kicked off the, the press conferences following this meeting on friday, and he spoke a little bit about the results of state department documents that were published on the eve of this meeting. now what happens with these state department data dumps,

document dump says that they're that designed to put out a whole load of talking points for journalists to make sure that people are talking about what the state department and washington want them to be talking about and more particularly that they're talking about them in the manner in which the state department and washington want them to be talked about in this day to dump. there was particular attention paid to paid to r t to the news agency. sputnik as well in which we were accused of having been agents of propaganda for talking about neo nazis and fall right groups in ukraine following it 2014. now this isn't just something that i'll feel like i've talked about. it is something that is quite well documented and the human rights watch among many, many of us have also talked about the these groups coming to the ascendancy since 2014. i asked the, the foreign minister, but he thought of these documents and what it meant for organizations like arte

my, you got these documents which the u. s. department has of course prepare deliberately for today's meeting. are simply impossible to read. it's enough to scroll through a couple of random pages to be sure, none of the provisions stand up to any critical analysis. in many cases, it is simply alive. as to the statement, the ukraine poses no threat to russia. when i'd like to repeat, the russia has never know where not a single time officially threatened ukraine. meanwhile, president, it's totally supported by the west, publicly declared that if any ukrainian citizens considered themselves russian, they should get out to russia. and he called those who oppose ukrainian state terrorism in danbury, not humans, but species. so it's up for debate. who threatens who are little grey. oh, well, the russian foreign ministers meeting was open to the u. s. media as well. and they particularly focused on when russia would be attacking ukraine. why is

russia doing this now? why do you feel that you need to make these troop deployments? now, when really the security pastor of the u. s. a. nato really hasn't changed over the past couple of years. yeah, boomers smugglers, nor did put a claim, and i think the u. s. state department should analyze the methods of cnn in regard to accuracy. you say we are going to attack ukraine despite our multiple explanations that we want. but seeing this will happen, you then asked why now, when do we not attack? it's a strange question. i'll diplomacy is a game of sport, a fine margins, the finest of margins. you've got to take small victories where there can be the fact that both sides are willing to continue the talk. i think that has to be seen as one of those little victories here. in geneva? yeah, absolutely. that is a positive takeaway. thank you. pay to that was artes peter all of the reporting from geneva. what we spoke with european political analyst and economist, i key hammer. he says the us government's interest. they don't represent those of

the general public, especially in europe. if you, if you overly, say what you want as, as washington, people say no, no, no, we are not on the boat. we don't, we don't join you. we don't help you supporting these big interests of black rock in the military industrial complex to support you. we are not, we are not in for that, especially not in the case of a war. we are not supporting in germany and europe once p and the business interest of nice. a few groups who seem to be ruthless in this case is not in the interest of the people. so you have to spin. you have to do pay news and you have to close the proper ground up front. and that's why all the media who are independent are a danger for them because they come up with as you set these arguments, whether people find out pretty quickly. know that the, what the media tell what the mainstream you get tells us is fate. what the

independent media tells us this makes much more sense. what is to be heard even r t has become a targets of the accusations from washington, with the us state department alleging that the channel and the fellow news. let's put nick, use different disinformation to advance rushes foreign policy with war and the story, his more gas, the f mother there, the latest allegations washington periodically comes out with, with new reports, with new investigations into odds. he and they're almost always regurgitated things that they've said before. at least this time we with the we didn't have a senate hearing with, with serious men in stars and stripes. discussing an r t video about a statue receive in too many views that has happened before ls this time. the gist of it is that washington has come out and said that look, media that is independent and free and generally aligned values the interests of

washington. at these, when they report on something it is, it is news, it is unbiased, it is a, it is balanced when r t reports on the same thing, it is propaganda. and this information, this, this is the gist of what they have said. they have listed the all sorts of examples where they believe that r t has said twisted and twisted, fax, or twisted news or narrative. for example, we, we had an incident where they talked about ortiz critical coverage of the european union's response. initial response to the pandemic. which is hero, completely justified you had the president of the european commission come out herself or so on the line and apologize. issue heartfelt apology to 700000000 european citizens who were left disappointed with that with the european union's response and reporting on this somehow in the eyes of washington or the state

department. eas, propaganda, and this information. there was also an interesting bit where they compared our t and scrutiny to the b, b, c, and voice of america, voice of america, which until up until 2013 was forbidden from broadcasting in the united states. because there was an understanding that it is propaganda intended for foreign consumption because it is unhealthy for americans up until 202000 sorry, and 30 of all manner of insiders and, and former employees. the voice of america come out and say over the years that yes, it is essentially funded by congress an arm of congress. nevertheless, this is opposed to charge for them of journalist. there's also, it is very interesting bit about weeklies, when can it's by the way, which has never published alive, which is statistically more accurate and more dependable than that, almost any media out as in the world be at cnn, bbc or we have an

r t at statistically, they have never published alive. so, so here the problem, the question that has this is they allege, and this is a live they alleged that are te, published a week leaks expos, 8 information about a new data done before week leaks did. which is a lie that's been debunked for years. what happened is we can, it's published approve of a new information and they forgot to they forgot to on twitter to announce it r t announced that because they saw it on their side and and for years washington had stuck this put the r t published weekly information before we collected, which is an outright lie so you can understand the general level of fact checking in. in this report, there was also a bit about turkey saying that russian coverage, russian media, cat coverage of turkey before a short shot down a russian jet,

was neutral after it's or shot down a russian death. it was negative. well, was that surprising? imagine mexico shooting down an american jet. what would american media say or say someone else shooting down a british jet? can you imagine the headlines of, on the daily mail, for example. nevertheless, this is, this is the lasers dump from the americans the, their latest investigation into r t and, and bootleg. but it is much the same as it has been in past years. ah, or against the then i, russia has successfully testified. a recently developed cruise missile off its east coast in the sea of japan. the launch of the caliber class missile was conducted from a new submarine to volkoff. the projectile travelled more than a 1000 kilometers to hit its target into testing site and russian territory. and the launch took place as russia is carrying out large scale navy drills in the

region. the submarines crew practice knew this to fall covertly entering the strategic area and firing high precision weapons washing out international thanks. he company this afternoon. we'll be back with more analysis for you in plenty of stories. tape us the headlines just stay with with

the new physical you versus simplest possible form. but everything got started and all that needed to be done with it before i actually and then. and so where are those new creations come from and hoping to switch. this is another contribution to science. can president abide and delivers a to our press conference which had time to let people scratching their head and body in had more questions than answers. we're going to bring you the highlight, plus to as predicted. republicans kill the chances of reform for the filibuster, as well as the future of the democratic voter reform bill and legislation. so

senator schumer knew the bill never had a chance. why did he even introduce it? we're gonna ask our panel. no, they're hard breaking story out of california where door just gas con is now speaking after a young girl was violently murdered and her father put the blame on the woke da, we're going to bring you yet another tragic story. having tied to the district attorney's office and crime is on the rise and every major city, but one neighborhood has had enough and it's asking it just to feed it from the metropolitan area. is this going to be a trend for other neighborhoods who are not feeling protected or their liberal government? i'm skyhouse houston on today. the news news news. we're going to cover these stories as well as the response to the teddy roosevelt statue being removed from the american museum of natural history and new york city. lots to cover. let's get started. ah,

we're going to start with president biden, giving an unprecedented press conference as a one year anniversary of being in office. now mixed reviews. however, on whether or not the press conference actually helped dispel from the negative views of this administration and their policies, or did it create the even more problems. obviously, it did not have the dramatic and democrats were hoping for. and later on in the evening, republicans to match the dreams of performing senate rules regarding the filibuster . thus putting the coffin of the voter rights bill into the ground. could this be a rough start to the 2nd year of the bio ministration? and how do democrats think it can improve was bringing our panelist, ed martin, chairman of phil shape legal forum and ladon jones, former georgia state representative. thanks for joining me. good gracious, yesterday. speak to our deal. i've got to give him credit. he did it. he answered questions from the press for 2 hours. bravo. i would like to see that every week,

summer probably can think has a great idea. some democrats are going, could we have ended it after the 1st hour. but i want to start with you with this one, ed, cuz i've got to ask you the expect to republican fund is obviously criticize a present speech. actually switch it. i'm going to get it done. that was a given. but it was democrats like van jones, who said by the answers were foggy at times like reagan at the end of his presidency press present obama, former adviser, david axelrod, actually criticized by a bite and saying he missed the mark and focused on himself too much shocking politicians talking about them. so don, i want to give the president credit, like i said, but you feel that he did more damage to his agenda considering what happened just a few hours later. you know, it's very difficult to talk yourself out of paper back this current presidency is not doing so well, but not passing legislation. that is there. and so what is that they want to before? and so what is necessary is that they give american the comfort and you do that by

presenting, well, we know republican talking points about buying it out of that. it's not so great. and all these other things they're making up was really important. then when you're given what is essentially a consistent concession speech to losing legislation that you present it as if america is still very strong, i would have really much like to see by do something that brought some comfort that there may be some other legislation that he's promised that may get passed in the future. oh don, if only he had to advise, i think i got a lot of people would, would appreciate it. and we'd want to hear that regardless of who is in the oval office. you know, we don't like to hear that we're losing all the time or that someone thinks that they've over promise no promise and deliver. but you know, the white house is already had to circle back, and this one's been kind of a storm today on bite and present by the statement regarding the russian ukraine situation. and as a republican, is there anything the president by that could have actually said yes.