We will see if the conditions for this have been created following the summit. Of course we are not saying no. We are proposed to— do this work. Is that what you want? This is the most important thing. This is the most important value, if you will, in international affairs. But he would say that you have caused a lot of instability and unpredictability.
I say another thing. But maybe at some point — in certain ways our rhetoric varies and is different. But if you ask my opinion now, I am telling you what it is. The most important value in international affairs is predictability and stability. And I believe that on the part of — the U.
What kind of stability and predictability— could there be there if we remember the events in Libya where the country was essentially taken apart, broken down? What kind of stability and — predictability were there? There has been talk of a continued presence of troops in Afghanistan.
And then all of a sudden, boom! What, is this predictability and the stability again? Now the Middle East events. Is this predictability and stability, what all of this will lead to? Or in Syria? What is stable and — predictable about this? I've asked my U. Who will replace him? What will happen when somebody— he's replaced with somebody? The answer is odd. The answer is, "I don't know. It could be a second Libya or another Afghanistan. Do we want this? Let us — sit down together, talk, look for compromise solutions that are acceptable for all the parties.
That is how stability is achieved. It cannot be achieved by imposing one particular point of view, the "correct" point of view, whereby all the other ones are incorrect.
That's not how stability is achieved. I want to just talk a little bit more about your relationship with —. This will not be the Helsinki summit. President Biden is — is not President Trump. You once described President Trump as a bright person, talented.
How would you describe President Biden? Trump is an extraordinary individual talented individual, otherwise he would not have become US President. He is a colorful individual. You may like him or not. And, but he didn't come from the U. President Biden, of course, is radically different from Trump because President Biden is a career man.
He has spent virtually his entire adulthood in politics. He has been doing it for a great deal of years and I have already said that and that is an obvious fact. Just think of the number of years he spent in the Senate, and how many years he was involved in the matters of international politics and disarmament, virtually at the expert level. That's a different kind of person, and it is my great hope that yes, there are some advantages, some disadvantages, but there will not be any knee-jerk reactions on behalf of the sitting US president that we will be able to comply with certain rules of engagement, certain rules of communications and will be able to find points of contact and common points.
And he said to you, "I'm looking in your eyes, and I can't see a soul. But I do not remember this particular part of our conversations, to be honest with you.
I do not remember. We all, when we meet, when we get together, when we talk, when we work and— strive and achieve some solutions, we all proceed from the interests of our nations and our states.
And this is fundamental and is the bedrock of all our actions and intentions. And— this is the driving force and the motive for organizing meetings of this kind. And— as far as soul goes, that's something for the church. You're a religious man. President Biden is saying he told you to your face, "You don't have a soul. I— I— I — I do not rule this out, but I don't remember this.
In personal encounters, people try to act appropriately. I do not remember any inappropriate elements of behavior on the part of my counterparts. I don't think that anything like that — has happened. Perhaps he did say something, but I do not remember. It depends on what form they're said in. One can say this in different ways. It can be presented in different ways. But generally, people meet up in order to establish a relationship and create an environment and conditions for joint work, with a view to achieving some kind of positive results.
If — one is — going to have a fight with somebody else — why bother and — have a meeting? One's better off — looking into budget and social policies — domestically. We have many issues that we have to resolve. What's the point then? It's just — a waste of time. Of course, one can and present this for domestic political consumption, which I believe is what has been done in — the U.
We can see that. We know it very well. We have been accused of all kinds of things: election interference, cyber attacks and so on and so forth. And not once, not once, not one time did they bother to produce any kind of evidence or proof.
Just unfounded accusations. I'm surprised that we have not yet been accused of— provoking the Black Lives Matter movement. That would have been a good line of attack. But there is — th — th — there are some grounds for it.
Let's remember Colin Powell who was State- secretary, was in charge — of — the Pentagon. Even he wrote in — his book that even he as a high-ranking official had felt some kind of injustice towards himself his entire life as a — as someone with a dark complexion.
Even from the Soviet — days— and in Russia, we have always treated with understanding the fight of African Americans for their rights. And there are certain roots to it. And— there are — there is a certain— foundation for this. But no matter how noble the goals that somebody is driven by, if it reaches certain extremes, if it spills over into — if it acquires elements of extremism— we— we c — we can not approve this.
We can not welcome it. So our attitude to this is very simple. We support African Americans' fight for their rights, but we are against any types and kinds of extremism, which unfortunately sometimes, regrettably, we witness currently —. But Mr.
President, there is now a weight of evidence, a long list of alleged state-sponsored cyber attacks. Let me give you five. There's a lot, but it makes a point. The U. Election security officials said Russia tried to interfere with the Election.
In April the Treasury Department said the SolarWinds attack was the world's worst with n— including not— the targets including nine federal agencies. And just before your summit, Microsoft says it's discovered another attack with targets including organizations that have criticized you— Mr. Presi— President, are you waging a cyber war against America? And then you went on to list those— official U. Is that what you did?
You are conveying information to me as to who said that. But where is evidence that this was indeed done? I will tell you that this person has said that, that person has said this. But where is the evidence?
Where is proof? With— when there is— when there are charges— without— evidence, I can tell you, you can take your complaint to the International League of Sexual Reform.
This is a conversation that has no subject. Put something on the table so that we can look and respond. But there isn't anything like that. The la— latest thing— one of the latest attacks as far as I know, was against the pipeline system in the U. Right, yes. So what? As far as I know, the shareholders of this company even made a decision to pay the ransom. They paid off the cyber gangsters. If you have— listed an entire set of U.
And— once they do that, they will realize that Russia has nothing to do with it. Then— there's the cyber attack against a meat processing plant. Next time they will say there was an attack against some Easter eggs.
It's becoming farcical, like an ongoing farcical thing, never-ending farcical thing. You said "plenty of evidence," but you haven't cited any proof. But th— again, this is— this— this is an empty conversation, a pointless conversation. What exactly are we talking about? There's no proof. Russian-speaking criminals is the allegation— are targeting the American way of life: food, gas, water, hospitals— transport. Why would you let Russian-speaking criminals disrupt your diplomacy?
Wouldn't— you want to know who's responsible? We did suggest that—. In October at first, they didn't say anything. Then in November, they came back to us and said that, yes, it was interesting. Then— the election was lost. We restated— this— proposal to Mr. Trump's administration. The response was that it is interesting, but no— it didn't— it didn't— it didn't come to the point of actual negotiations. There were— there are grounds to believe that we can build an effort— in this area with the new administration, that the domestic political situation— in the U.
But we have proposed to do this work together. Let's agree on the principles of mut— mutual work. Let's find out what we can do together. Let's agree on how we will structure counter-efforts against the process that is— gathering momentum. We here in the Russian Federation have— cyber crimes that have increased— many times over in the last few years. We're trying to respond to it. We're looking for cyber criminals. If we find them, we punish them.
We are willing to engage with international participants, including the United States. You are the ones who have refused to engage in joint work. What can we do? We cannot build— this work, we cannot structure this work unilaterally. I'm just a journalist asking— you—. But if you— you clearly want to negotiate. You must have something to negotiate with. You— you don't ask for a truce unless you're fighting in a war.
N— NATO has officially stated that it considers cyberspace a battlefield, an area of— military action—. If we wanted to do that, NATO said that it considers cyberspace an area of— combat. And— it prepares and even conducts exercises. What stops us from doing that? If you do that, we will do the same thing. But we don't want that. And we have suggested on many occasions, agreeing on mutual work in the cybersecurity area in this—.
Isn't what you're proposing? That if you can come to an agreement over hacking and election interference, then you'll call off the hacking and the election interference if America agrees not to comment on your elections and your political opponents?
All nations of the world should be given an opportunity to develop calmly. Even if there are crisis situations they have to be resolved by the people domestically, without any influence or interference from the outside.
I don't think that this call by the U. I— it appears to me that the U. I don't think that this process can be stopped, because it has gained a lot of momentum. However, as far as joint work in cyberspace for the prevention of some unacceptable actions on the part of cyber criminals— cyber criminals— that is definitely something that can be agreed upon. And it is our great hope that we will be able to establish this process with our U.
The lights being switched off the way they were in western Ukraine in ? What might happen next if there's no agreement on cyber? This is a very dangerous area.
At some point, in order to achieve something in the nuclear area in terms of— confrontation in the area of nuclear— weapons, the USSR and the United States did agree to contain this particular arms race.
Cyberspace is a very sensitive area. As of today, a great deal of human endeavors rely upon digital technologies, including the functioning of— government. And of course interference in those processes can cause a lot of damage and a lot of losses. And everybody understands that. And I am repeating a third time— for the third time: Let's sit down together and agree on joint work on how to— achieve security in this area.
That is all. What's— what's bad about it? I don't even understand. I'm not— I'm not asking you. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But— for me as— as an ordinary citizen, it would not be clear and understandable. Why is it that your government refuses to— to do it? Accusations keep coming, including up to— interference— involvement in a cyber attack against some kind of a meat processing plant. But our proposal to start negotiations in this area are being turned down.
This is some kind of nonsense, but that's exactly what's been happening. Once— I— I repeat one more time. It is my hope that we will be able to start engaging in positive work in this area. In terms of what's to be afraid of, why is it that we suggest agreeing on something? Because what— people can be afraid of in America, are worried of in America, the very same thing can be a danger to us.
NATO has declared cyberspace an area of— combat. That means they are planning something. They are preparing something. So obviously this cannot but worry us. He'll raise the— issue of Alexei Navalny, targeted for assassination, now in a Russian jail.
President, why are you so threatened by opposition? Who told you— who told you that—. I'm sorry. A Russian court has just outlawed organizations connected to Mr. Literally every non-systematic opposition figure is facing criminal charges. In journalism— Meduza and VTimes have been hit with "foreign agent" labels— and face collapse. President, it's as if dissent is simply not tolerated in Russia anymore.
We view it completely differently. You have mentioned the law on foreign agents, but that's not something that we invented. That law was passed back in the s in the United States. And that law is much harsher than ours, and it is directed and intended, among other things, at preventing interference in the domestic political affairs of the United States—. What about that? Let me ask you a direct question.
Did— did you— did you—. You've asked me a question. You are not liking my answer , so you're interrupting me. This is— this is inappropriate. So there we go. In the United States, this law was adopted a long time ago. It's working, and sanctions under that law are much harsher—. Yes, yes, yes. Again you are not letting me… But I will— I will— I will revert to us.
I will go back to us. Don't worry. I will not just— I will not just be focused on U. I will— I will revert, and go back, and comment on what's happening—. Pre— Mr. President, I— I thought your— I thought your— belief was that nations shouldn't intervene in other countries' domestic affairs, shouldn't comment on other—.
If— you muster patience and let me finish saying what I mean to say. Everything will be clear to you. But you are not liking my answer. You don't want my answer to be heard by your audience.
That is the problem. You are shutting me down. Is that a free expression—. So thank you very much. Here we go. We passed this law very recently in order to protect our society against outside interference. We're in some of the— states, a foreign observer comes to a polling station. The prosecutor says, "Come a l— few feet closer, and you'll go to jail.
Is that democracy in the modern world? But— that is an actual practice in some of the states. We don't have anything like that. When I talk about these laws about noninterference or attempts at interference, what do I mean as applied to Russia? Many entities of the so-called "civil society," the reason I say "so-called civil society" is because many of those entities are funded from abroad.
Specific relevant action programs are prepared. Their core members are trained abroad. And when our official authorities see that, in order to prevent this kind of interference in our domestic affairs, we make relevant decisions and adopt relevant laws. And they are more lenient than yours. You have— we have a saying: "Don't be mad at the mirror if you are ugly.
But if somebody blames us for something, what I say is, "Why don't you look at yourselves? There is nothing unusual about it.
As far as political activities and the political system, it is evolving. We have 44 registered parties. Well, 34 I think. Delivery to your home or office Monday to Saturday FT Weekend paper — a stimulating blend of news and lifestyle features ePaper access — the digital replica of the printed newspaper. Team or Enterprise Premium FT. Pay based on use. Does my organisation subscribe? Group Subscription. Premium Digital access, plus: Convenient access for groups of users Integration with third party platforms and CRM systems Usage based pricing and volume discounts for multiple users Subscription management tools and usage reporting SAML-based single sign-on SSO Dedicated account and customer success teams.
Learn more and compare subscriptions content expands above. Full Terms and Conditions apply to all Subscriptions. Some scientists say COP26 commitments on deforestation, coal power and a fund for developing nations lack ambition. Amid COP26 talks, more than events worldwide demand action for communities already affected by climate change.
Rally led by Greta Thunberg comes as week one of UN climate summit draws to a close, amid calls for further commitments. Published On 8 Nov From: Inside Story. To save our futures, COP26 must deliver on a number of key points.
0コメント