a and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves well to part, we choose to look for common ground. ah, a useful me thing with a kind of exchange of opinions at a critical moment. that's how the russian and u. s. foreign policy chief described their talks in geneva, which culminated arising tensions over ukraine and nato expansion. when it's about, 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 a line that the news conference off to the talk. so i go louder, all flashes out at u. s. officials on mainstream media pushing fresh on proven lines against moscow. examine those claims this out. a report lines full of

poke, pope benedict, the 16th failed to take action obligations of sexual abuse among the clergy in germany with long for moscow. thanks for joining us. and i shall, daniel hawkins. wherever you are, the sal are welcome to the program. now the top for diplomats of russia and the united states have finished their security talks in switzerland as tensions of ukraine remain high. washington's expected to provide moscow with a written response to the prominence concerns next week. he's peter oliver reports from jenny bye so wraps up here in geneva, and we've now got a much clearer picture of exactly how both the us and russian side see these talks having gone. we heard from said again after off the russian foreign minister, who describe them as useful and constructive. we heard from anthony blink in the u

. s. secretary of state who said that they were frank, an substances we'll start with the russian foreign minister said gala for of low. he was 1st to give his press conference after the meeting wrapped up. he said that washington had promised to provide an answer in writing to security concerns that had been presented by moscow to their u. s. partners. now he said that these weren't just security concerns focusing on ukraine. they were for the wider european area. he said that the future of these talks would depend on the response from the united states there. but he said that the diplomatic doors pretty much remained open. it's worth pointing out, there was no major movement on any of the, the big sticking points during and these talk certainly what the representatives thief, a foreign minister in the, a secretary state had to say, there was tow major and tectonic shifts in where the risk, respective countries stand, what we did here though,

from the russian foreign minister, as he addressed questions from the u. s. media with him say that there was no intention from moscow for them to invade ukraine at any time. why is russia doing this now? why do you feel that you need to make these troop deployments? now, what really the security posture of the u. s. a. nato really hasn't changed over the past couple of years. my store sued to rec room when europe goes, i think the u. s. state department should analyze the methods of cnn in regard to accuracy. you say we're going to attack ukraine despite our multiple explanations that we won't. but saying this will happen. you then ask why now, when do we not attack? it's a strange question. so we've caused repeated all fundamental point that never ending nato expansion to east should be stopped. and nibbling can repeated his position on the right to choose alliances. asked him how the u. s. plans to follow its obligation not to strengthen someone's security at the expense of the security of others. he promised to explained the u. s. position on that. also gala ross press

conference was followed up with one from u. s. secretary of state anthony blinkin b u. s. chief diplomat saying that the diplomatic route remained open to finding a solution for the tensions between russia and the west right now. he said that he received the sure answers from said galen, for all the richer had no intention of invading ukraine at this moment. he said he'd received those assurances in the past as well, but that if the actions of russia didn't match up to that, then there would be a response from the united states and its allies and not response would be swift, severe, and united. and he said that there will be a response from washington to those concerns that were voiced by m moscow and that response will be coming in the next week. he also said that there's ways and means available to take the heat out of the current situation. 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 the, some of the concerns while the you, a secretary of state also sketched out a potential timeline of where we could be going next. he said that once they've responded to moscow, he would expect that there would be further meetings at the foreign ministerial level, perhaps here in geneva. and if those meetings went well, that there could be another meeting between president putin and president biden, perhaps face to face, perhaps here in geneva, a repeat of what we saw last year, and which took place in this with city. what we have seen though is a continuation, a willingness to continue the dialogue over these ongoing tensions between russia and the west. let's go live now are going on for president of the geneva parliament . thanks for joining us. good to have you on the program with us today. those folks

have wrapped up both officials with elaborate for mr. blinking rudy keeping that cause quite close to bed chess at this point, but the u. s. has said they will give a written response to russia's concerns and next week. are you optimistic about any sort of concessions or some sort of agreement being reached? yes, that's the only slight progress we have today. that is exactly. it is fine. because until now, since mr. since the russia has made that he is a proposal last december to 20, so he's, there was no answer or nothing happened after the russian proposals. that's the 1st time. now of course today, jenny, about that, i mean, because i attempted to answer even with an answer to for so it's

a slide for another assign which would be interesting. a slide more from the united states is just today for review a policy as you know, that's the biggest review of that. and for the 1st time in 30 years, because it's interesting to note 2 articles or one article is, title is america power plant. so that's the 1st time i see this question, and the 2nd is still going to go. the nato is too big to provocative for its own food. so that's the 1st time that i see the signature offer prominent us expect close to the

secretary of state and so on. or saying maybe nato is too big and is of x over extended. and maybe it's not a good thing to do it. so maybe it could be a 2nd sign that something is slightly moving in washington. i hope. but it's not one until now. we will see next week. do you think if nato does keep insisting that you'd frame can join the alliance and there's a potential for that happening in the future that there really is any hope of solution because that really is a red line for moscow, isn't it? that's something they've made very clear is an absolute deal breaker. ready that's, that's why i think the stakes of negotiations often quade. because as it has been told, it's also about disarmament. it's also about cyber security, locked up topics not only quinn. quinn is very important because it's the red lines

and it has. ready been said or not talk to you what progress could be made. but yes, the main, the main problem now is lying in ukraine and there was no sign from america to week organized, legitimate concerns about security. i think we could get to that and, and something stronger, stronger on so from, from russia, because russia cannot accept a nuclear you s nuclear besides, just, you know, when you spoke, it's not negotiable for russia. but i think your government is pretty conscious of this problem. now it is too fine,

and let's see, we can win all save to face. or so you sion, or door wise, we will get very big progress in europe. some of us have drawn parallels between the example of russia deploying troops or miss isles, or to mexico, for example, on the us border and how the u. s. would react, in that case and a need. we saw how the worth reacted back in 962 with the cuban missile crisis. why do you think the west and america is so reluctant to see russia's point of view about the build up on its own border? it's not something may seem to acknowledge. yes or no. the problem was, you know, i compare was shot to a big move. the big mom was eaten, you know, grass out into, to draw you in this last 2025 years. and you have a lot of money boys or girls or ways and you kind

of can you bros, united states, i don't need to come trees. and so i'm trying to buy and do you know to eat on my move? no side and now to my move has said, i am upset stuff to do it because if you will know, continue you're on, i see by the see something up and we are not exactly into a same case as in cuba in this state. but now, is russia who is a resizing direct lines? it's not all the kennedy to russia is now was shot to united states, but for you not to send out quite a question to see the piece, food wash and my with you go or say no yet for yet. and

if you continue, something will happen to you. and that's the message. i hope it will be her next week. yeah, let's hope that the my, my son on the target can reach some sort of consensus over the coming days. go. i met on for the president of the geneva parliament. thank you for your time here today with us. thank you. thank you for your well ahead of those socks, the state departments outlined what it sites as examples of russian this information and a report that presents its opinions of solid facts. it was published just a couple of hours before the talk. so, russia's foreign minister was very critical of both the content and it's timing it tomorrow. you've got loaded, rosie, but the lease documents which the u. s. state department has of course prepare deliberately for today's meeting is simply impossible to read. it's enough to scroll through a couple of random pages to be sure none of the provision stand up to any critical

analysis. in many cases, it is simply a lie while among the dubious claims and the report is at length owes not encircling russia with its military bases. it argues that the real problem is that russia is just such a big country with lauren. the story here is more aggressive while over the past 24 hours, washington has launch something of a, of a p r offensive, or they, they've come out. and they've said that virtually are all the security concerns that russia has talked and talked about for 10 years for even longer than a decade. that all of that ease ease fiction. they've come up with, with a list of various things that russia has said that russia feels uncomfortable about all concerned about and explain why those points shouldn't be taken seriously. fiction rushes, deployment of combat forces is a mirror position of troops on its own territory. fact deployed more than a 100000 russian troops,

including battle hard uncovered forces and offensive weaponry, with no plausible innocuous explanation to the borders of a country that russia has previously invaded and still occupied. in places is no mere troop rotation. it is a clear, renewed russia threats to ukraine sovereignty in territorial integrity. there is, of course, no mention of the fact that the russian troop buildup happen concurrently with ukrainian to build up with the vase convoys of tags, of artillery pieces, making their way towards the russian wood towards eastern ukraine and the conflict lines. the conflict lines there, and the gist of that statement, for example, is that the united states is concerned with the russian troops moving inside russia . whereas rushes concerned with troops from florida, from canada being sent half the world away, and stationed near russia, is as you can understand, where rushes coming from here. but there's a, there's

a whole lot more where that came from. there are passages full of inhuman falls, heat, and stupidity. for example, they call fake mosque, a statement that the repositioning of russian trips and russian territory means repositioning of russian troops on russian territory. brilliant. what is there more hair lies or illiteracy? i did not even want to deal with it. i know one thing for sure, this could only be published by the ministry of truth. similar situation would be, was her coming out and hysterically condemning a united states to build up in texas for example. there was, there were many other points such as another one, a fiction, or russian fiction is that nato is surrounding washer. and here they argue that, that no, it isn't. rush was a huge country with, with $1414.00 neighbors that a chairs, landlord, the women, and only fog, those a native states. well,

if we look back 20 years, there was only one. then there were 3, then there were 5. and now with the essential potential ascension of, of george and ukraine in the future are right about half of russia's, lambert neighbors would be nato member states. so how can, how can you argue that nato isn't surrounding russia when, when you have the numbers right there, there was also another, another russian fiction. the new wouldn't promised russia that nato wouldn't expand eastwards. this is, this is an outright lie. this is an in c, i and state department in european archives that yes they did. it's in writing and a cia archives, for example. then director of the cia director robert gates said the gorbachev's had been promised to be led to believe that nathan wouldn't expect this, but you had the james bake of the state department, the head of the state department, secretary of state back then as 3 times telling gorbachev's that they wouldn't move

one inch eastward. you had a v, then west german foreign minister, and either get you saying that nato shouldn't expand east, but given assurances to russia, then the usaa, the, in the event of germany, re unifying that neither would movies. you have this in writing in rising lisa, archived memos, cables. nevertheless, there's this, as i say, much more in that least of russian fictions which a lot of questions about royalty itself has also become a target of washington's accusations. with the u. s. state department alleging the channel and fellow news outlets. sputnik used this information to advance the cremeans foreign policy, but reaction from r t o stand for british m p. george galloway. the timing on the launch of this report is naked, lay a sign that that's part of our new propaganda or friendship. but i have had

the unpleasant task of reading all. busy 33 pages of it, of the people that have lied to us over and over again, are now lying to us about ukraine and russia. a market for it. there was an audience for it, but fewer and fewer people are believing these lies than ever before. thanks to the existence of r t, the existence or social media. people can find out the truth just with letting their fingers do the walking. and more and more of them are still to come. we speak to an alleged victim of church sex abuse amid a prob, finding that pope former pope benedict 16 failed to take action to stop the crime story and move on to the bright

blue, blue blue a blue blue with all i join me every thursday on the alex salmon show and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politic sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. in

the news. ah, welcome back. and the report is claimed that full mark, pope benedict 16 failed to take action and full cases of alleged sexual abuse. while he was serving his archbishop of the german cities of munich and phrasing. a study by german law firm looked into cases of abuse between 945 to 2019. and how shot your bushels handle them? according to the report, over 2 thirds of people investigated turned out to be priest. now the report also said the former pope supported this latest inquiry, but denied any wrong doing. we spoke with the wilford festal man who says he was a victim of sex abuse by the close you during that period. and you told us what

he's been through. that's why someone, it happened in the summer of 979. i was 11 years old back then pastor act served as st. andrews church and when he left us and groups of people started attacking me, they knew i was one of the reasons he left. we moved to another district of the town and in 1999, i began to be affected by my experiences. i could not work, i had dizziness, i could not drive or simply go out of the house. my whole family was suffering because of that. i started visiting doctors to find out what the problem was. and finally i got to see a psychotherapist. i told him the whole story and he said i had been through a really traumatic experience that triggered memories of all the abuse i had experienced. when i saw the pastor munich, he was standing among other pastor, smiling. i told myself, listen paraphilias disease. so he'll most likely keep going. he did for the 1st time that senior catholic clergy might have been on the far over sexual abuse. numerous other cases have been reported and other german cities as well as ireland

and front. wilford's 1st man again says that after his letter poke benedict, showing his punishment guidelines for clergy guilty of sex offences, but says it's taken too long to change when he was fight off in 20062008, i sent an automated emails to the munich diocese, i wrote about my experiences with pastor acts when he was in s, and they ignored my letter in 2006. so i tried again in 2008 when abuse victims were demanding compensation for the 1st time. they then described my letter as criminal blackmail, but it's clear that i hadn't been blackmailing the church. those officials who came to me real life, i was a victim right away. they also realized they themselves had been used by the church . they were simply fooled by it. i was 1st of all concerned about justice because the pastor just went to another place when i was writing the letter. it was important to me to protect others and may 2010. i wrote to pope benedict. i told him my whole story on may 21st. i got a response saying the pope would take care of it and he really did. but as we have seen, it took 2530 years for

a victim to open up and start talking about it. congress, ma'am, i have joined the public to blast. the us internal revenue service is new demand to use a 3rd party facial recognition for tax returns with one congress. one warning, this is america, not china. the irish insist the id dot may i please secure and will be required for all services. but fax buyers points out clear potential for abuse and sanction sharing with other government agencies. breaking the i r s are now trying to require facial recognition to view your tax returns. this is america, not china. do you mean there is a problem with id theft for tax returns, but not for voting ballots? thank you senator. especially given what we know about the i r s ability to share data with other federal agencies. i see the f, b i, d, e, a, etc. this is essentially creating mandated

u. s. government facial recognition database that will inevitably be abused by facial recognition. well, let's bring in justin robert young, host of the politics, politics, politics podcast. thanks for joining us. a good having a program today. just how valid all these privacy concerns about using a 3rd party facial recognition. because b r s at least the saying this is very secure, there's going to be no danger of any sort of data being leaked to share with other agencies. and what's the problem? well, well 1st let's understand what the problem was before that gets us to this situation . the iris has had a problem and it's been a very, very serious problem in terms of data theft of having hackers that have fairly minimal information about you being able to go and access back taxes. they needed a security overhaul. it was very, very, very much needed and this is their solution for it to use a vendor that has been used at the state level of for

a bunch of different things that at its fir, this point. so based on what they have said so far, the vast majority of people that interact with their taxes will not have to submit a selfie and certainly will not have to submit a live self be. which is that you go online with another person and show that you are the person that you claim to be. but at its most extreme, if you are unable to come up with the information that you would need to log in to your tax returns or any iris service and you are trying to access somebody's return . that would be a last resort. essentially that id me would, would use so that's the problem they're trying to solve. whether or not this will be abused. obviously something the privacy of advocates should be keeping an eye on . but, but that's the situation that we're in now. and you mentioned the r s has been

hacked in the past, and that's the reason why these changes all being brought in. but do you think potentially owning such data, such as facial recognition, that biometric baser will actually increase the interest of hackers who could then take that biometric data and use it? so perhaps other thoughts, other companies, all the government departments possibly but, but realistically somebody's facial dimensions are far less useful in utilitarian than their social security number. it's far less useful than somebody's back addresses or anything like that that you usually, i mean, the vast majority, the people that are trying to abuse the i r s are what's called skimmers. these are not exactly masterminds where we're looking at people that are trying to take advantage of very basic level security breaches that are well known and exploited. so if you can get somebody to click on a fishing link,

that then you enter in your social security number, that's how they're pulling your back tax information and that's the information they gain from that. they're then using to further steal your identity, run of your credit cards, blah, blah, blah blah. so if facial recognition data while maybe more on the high end for very high level security might be more valuable. but again, we're not looking at the idea me service being primarily used for facial recognition. that would only be if you do not have the information that would otherwise get you into your account. this is the last resort, at least according to i. d dot me now that changes them, privacy advocates should be stepping in and saying, hey look, this is a problem and there probably should be assurances that are given to a federal contractor that this will not happen on a more regular basis. and just briefly, how do you think that corporations that work with governments can guarantee to the public from whom their faith is back? last that their data won't be abuse and the data is safe. what can i do to convince

people? this is ok. this is the way forward. well, i mean, just their best a that well, which is really, i mean, right now the i r s data is not secure. you know, that's the reason why we're going into this is that it was way too easy to access. somebody's back faxes that essentially gives away the golden goose in terms of somebody being able to impersonate you online to the federal government has already done an extraordinarily poor job of securing our data. this is where it is going forward. now whether i d dot me remains a top tier vendor for which maintains their relationships with both states and federal governments. that is something that, that again, we do need to make sure that we keep a vigilant ion. but as for assurances, look, man, this is the internet, it is a dirty place and people can get pretty much whatever they want if you are insecure

and many of us are just and robert young, thanks so much for your take on the story here that i not international good to have you with you as well. the up next thought you document fix low is the problem of mass deforestation, and russia and how to tackle it. we're back in alpha with the very like just jordan again. then he on auto international in blue. on this addition to the paragraph, we discuss the ongoing nato, russia pensions. we ask, what is nato strategy also, what is russia strategy dealing with nato nice word expansion, and what are the likely outcomes for both so called and chance interrogation techniques used by the u. s. officials were basically designed as techniques to break down the human mind. if you force

a human being to stay in a certain position doesn't take very long to the pain involved to become absolutely excruciating, but nobody's lean finger on you. you are doing it to yourself. we started adopting those techniques when i was station and mosul among them were stress positions, sleep deprivation. and usually hypothermia is already beginning to be evidence that these old techniques are now being used on immigrants and children, whatever you do in war comes home. nobody has been held accountable for the torture that happened in the past. the moral authority, the made america award letter sacrifice. but the shimmer of effective interrogation with 2021 has a game broken,

an abysmal record more than 17000000 hector as a foreign.