tv Russian Ambassador to the U.S. at Stimson Center CSPAN March 4, 2019 3:04pm-4:09pm EST
are you seeing that with the agencies themselves in taking steps to resolve these issues? guest: there have been modest changes, but they are not enough. for example, the idea of a button. consumers, instead of having to mail in supporting documents like the judgment or canceled check, they can upload the documents as part of the dispute. that is helpful, but the problem is, the issue i talked about before, parroting. the information furnisher either doesn't look at the --umentation,
peterson foundation for facilitating this and many of these dialogues here at the stimson center. we marked three decades of working quite tirelessly on issues of international peace and security. how long we've been working on these issues and more the way we work on these issues that sets the stimson center apart from others here in town. namely, we are intentionally inclusive. we bring together uncommon alliances around common challenges, and even at times opposing opinions around these challenges, coming together to find common cause to address perspective ways forward. that iith that in mind introduce our guest, the ambassador from the russian federation, here this afternoon, anatoly antonov welcome, sir.
also predominantly with the foreign ministry, he served not just as deputy foreign minister, but also deputy minister of defense. he has a background particularly in strategic arms control he has and since 2017, been moscow's man here in washington. it is a deep honor to welcome you, sir, to the stimson center, and thank you for making time to do this. mr. antonov: thank you very much. i would just like to say a few words. first of all, it is important for us to be together today, ofing into account the shape russia-american relations. it seems to me that it is wise to sit together, to speak to each other, trying to understand where we are and what should we
or weether we are enemies are rivals, whether we are partners are friends. let's try to understand who we are and what should we do make our worldo more stable, and what should we do together to increase security for the sake of the united states of america as well as for the sake of the russian federation. >> very good. that is a great segue. i think it is an understatement, of course, for anyone in the room to hear that the current state of u.s.-russia relations is under duress. after the cold war we had fundamental disagreements on many issues as will, whether it was over strategic arms control or any of the other issues, both
then and now, we continue to always talk. we entered into trade unions, we develop cooperative projects. we had opportunities for scientific and academic exchanges, for cultural exchanges, and it is really in that spirit, i think, that i would like to have this discussion with you over the course of the next hour. the disagreements that exist, whether it is syria, ukraine, strategic arms control, but really to look forward instead and try to find opportunities for common cause, where as you say, united states and russia can perhaps build moveborative ties and forward and improve the relationship. with that in mind, let me take you for a little walk down memory lane. you spent the lions share of your career working on strategic arms control issues at the foreign ministry.
you spent time at the conference on disarmament in geneva. even your phd thesis was on reducing threats around nuclear arms. let's start there. are we bumbling and stumbling our way into a new nuclear arms race? mr. antonov: you would like me to start just from this issue? [laughter] mr. antonov: it feels to me that i would spend the whole afternoon and evening. of course we have so many problems, and if you permit me, i just would like to say a few words to understand where we are, and also to give an opportunity for you to .nderstand who i am i just would like to say that the situation of strategic stability as well as arms control is very bad. we are in crisis. i would like to remind you that
in 2002, the united states had decided to withdraw from abm. it was one of the crucial treaties between the united states and the soviet union. and maybe it would be better for me to start to make one step back. since the second world war, we have been living today's without of you knowope many what it is, whether you like it or not, but mutually assured forruction was the basis peace for the united states and for the russian federation. it is clear that if you attack the soviet union or the russian federation, you will get an answer. nobodych understanding,
tried to be a winner. today, i am scared that some politicians and generals in washington and maybe other capitals, they start thinking about the possibility to be a winner in nuclear war. i would like to use this opportunity to send a message that it is impossible to win a nuclear war. it, andto understand with such understanding, we can of nucleare issues disarmament and arms control. abm treaty.e it was the decision of the united states to withdraw from this treaty. at the time, there was a lot of discussions that russia would not do anything in retaliation. years has,, that 15
and on the first of march, our , has tot, is to putin inform the national community your weapon system. i would like to in numerator them -- -- enumerate them. these names are very familiar for you, for those guys who are dealing with arms control. , it wasot our option just only an attempt to find an answer to the decision of previous administrations to destroy strategic stability between the united states and the russian federation. i also would like to remind you attempts to a few thet cooperation with
united states, with nato countries. i just would like to mention that there was a set of proposals introduced by russia the002 where we discussed position area in europe, where there were some plans to deploy antimissile capabilities. in 2007, we offered nato countries as well as the united states to make a joint venture. when i say joint venture, in guided missile defense. moreover, there was a very interesting russia-nato summit in 2010. again, russia introduced some ideas regarding missile defense. where weask you, from are now at this point, looking back, theather than
russian federation has proposed it a viablew -- is option, do you think? mr. antonov: all our proposals are still valid. they are on the table, but i would like to remind you that recently there was a meeting with art minister of defense and others where my president made are awaiting ae signal from the american side, whether america is ready, not extend an urgency to discuss all relative issues regarding arms control and nuclear disarmament. and he said, and even today i can urge you to -- i mean the united states to start a decision, because it is
prohibited now by my president. he has said that all power proposals are on the table for negotiations. we will not try to persuade our colleagues to speed up this process. we will be waiting an answer from the american side, when and how could we start discussion on all these issues. know, curious to ambassador, how you view the results of the recent hanoi summit, if we can turn the page and look at north korea for a moment. we have not yet even touched the problem of arms , but i'mnd disarmament in your hands, that is why i -- until you say i can stay here longer. it's up to you, it's up to the
audience whether you are ready to discuss all issues. as to hanoi, first of all, north korea is our neighbor. i hope that you understand that we are not interested to see any missile nuclear challenges to russian security along the perimeter of our border. it means we are in favor of peaceful solutions of all problems we face today in that region. first, the second we would like to confirm our willingness to cooperate with the united states on this issue. we made it clear many times, moreover, you say that were some meetings between our deputy minister for foreign affairs, who maybe one month ago visited washington, where he had discussions with your special representative on this issue.
having said that, i would like to say that nuclear disarmament an easyo -- not project. it seems to me it is impossible to achieve tangible results within one month or a year. maybe you know how many years we know to arm, and what i from my engineers, my technicians and from my scientists, that we had to spend more time, more money to dismantle excessive quantity of our missiles and warheads. so that's why i understand how it will be difficult for the united states to get the necessary results. it is very important to confirm that positive result is not just only in the interest of the
united states, it is in the ,nterest of the entire world including of course the russian federation. that is why we are welcoming all positive efforts made by this administration, by the state ,epartment, to find a solution to find a way how to make the korean peninsula free of nuclear to conclude the thee treaty and to change arms treaty agreement that exist in this area. i understand all that. words ae my diplomatic little away from what i just said, of course washington maybe wanting to get more. we also would like to see peace and prosperity on the korean peninsula, but it's not so easy. korearstand that north
would like to get assurances for security. it's very easy to give up a capability that you possess just only for the future, for a stable development, but what will be the day after tomorrow? we know the situation in venezuela, for example, we know what has happened in libya, in syria, and of course i that might north korean colleagues would like to take into account all reasons regarding their decision, or maybe it's better to say implementation of their readiness to dismantle their nuclear missile program. would said that, again, i
not count -- characterize north korea as a nuclear weapon state. we would like to see north korea as a nonnuclear weapon state. our interests, as you suggest, align in the main in north korea, is there a unique role for russia to play in advancing those negotiations? we are ready to assist the united states. it's up to the united states whether the united states wants to see us -- how to say, as a partner, at the table of negotiations. as i understand it, at this stage, united states prefers to try to solve all outstanding issues alone. i heard a same time,
lot of messages, including from mr. trump, your president, about a positive role of the russian federation in this crisis. and i hope that the time will come when we will be at the same table of negotiations, dealing with this issue. >> do still believe it is time to lift sanctions on north korea? a few years ago, the russian federation and china road, whichlled consists of two parts. for example, about potential actions made by the united states and also potential actions that should be done by north korea. we can see the and assess a to continue step-by-step approach, -- the necessity to continue a step-by-step approach.
we consider it to be wise to make some concessions to them. and it's up to the united states and north korea to decide where this issue is right to start movement. as i understand from press conference delivered by united states president that at this stage, he is thinking about potential steps by united states, if and when north korea can make some steps towards nuclear disarmament. >> let's turn to an easier problem, iran. is there future for the jcpoa? mr. antonov: it's a difficult question, really. i was very upset when the united states decided to with -- withdraw from jcpoa.
i participated in negotiations on this issue. imagine how much -- sometimes i'm very much surprised. fromember how our critics the united states and western --ntries criticized us for we try to say that we would like to destroy everything and then we will construct something special, if you remember. now it seems to me that the united states is doing the same. to inventy easy something, but it's very difficult to create. , remember one japanese proverb that it's very easy to destroy a
castle, but it will need three years to erect a new one. ,e understand the united states regarding human rights, regarding malign activities in the middle east. ballistic missile programs plus nuclear programs. nuclear program was discussed for many years, and it was very difficult, very sensitive, compromise between six countries who participated in these negotiations. that, letanding is ifoa be still alive, and united states has other concerns regarding issues that i already mentioned, it will be possible for them to engage iran for such discussions and for such negotiations. , united states has
decided to withdraw from jcpoa, and maybe it is a legal question to american colleagues, i don't understand this absence of un security council resolution on this issue, because the jcpoa was endorsed by security council. suddenly, one member of security council has decided to withdraw from this eel. does it mean that -- from this deal. does this mean the issue is still alive? it's a legal question to my colleagues from the united states. we can see -- we considered important to stick to our position to support jcpoa. we also would like to welcome germany, u.k.,by
and france, who have decided to use a special mechanism to -- i don't want to use the work circumvent -- the word circumvent, but maybe a word to jcpoa. to live with please don't forget about the position of china because china seek -- sticks to its previous position in his decision to implement jcpoa. it's very easy to find some pretext to withdraw from this deal. we are looking very attentively at a rainy and actions. at this -- at a rainy and actions. ian actions.
iran does not violate any agreements in accordance with jcpoa. it seems to me that we have to dealr best to see this alive, and iran as well as other parties to implement all provisions of this deal. it would be wise if united states could revisit its decision and could return back be obeyed byand to the un security council decisions. >> i want to pick up on that point with regard to the security council. with multilateral decision-making, not just at the u.n. but elsewhere, if we think back, the united states and russia helped found the united nations almost 75 years ago.
while particularly the security council, the two governments did not always agree, but they did agree on a fundamental need for the institution to have a hottie where decision -- have a body where decisions could be made that could ultimately be propagated. are you concerned that the state of multilateral decision-making today at international institutions? mr. antonov: yes, we have a great concern. i would like you also to understand where we are. beenhis system has created, after the second world war, the united states, the soviet union and other countries in the second world war, we decided to organize, to set up the un security council. we have a liberated institute, in accordance are members of the
security council and there are in the security council. i remember from my life in institute where i studied, where the core of power lies is legal norms of international community. >> it was important for everybody to abide with the provisions of all international abiding conventions. now,hat has happened again, as we agreed is there is and me.racy between him [laughter] >> i will not blame anybody. fewst would like to say a that, that today we see many leaders in the world try to the legal system, not
internationally recognized conventions but so-called order based on rules. frankly, i don't understand, mean?oes it i don't understand, what does it mean? and what i see, i see some to undercut a system that was created after the second world war. i would like to say that we are discuss all challenges to our security, all challenges the international system in which we are living. but it does not mean that right tohas the norms,t legal binding conventions that we have created together. it's very important. >> so can i ask you, ambassador, complicatedlong, and twisted history to bring us are in syria and in afghanistan. ourn keeping with
conspiracy, rather than looking therelooking forward, is a special role that russia and the united states can play together to find common cause, help bring a stable postconflict environment in both those countries? >> i smile only because of one because we have found one issue where we are together. syria. only today, there was a general, ouren the chief of staff, of the armed forces of the russian and the general. in yemen. they discussed the issue of syria. it is very important. i welcomed the minister of defense, it was a great honor for me to deal with this issue as well. tothe time, we tried tosuade our american leagues conclude a special arrangement,
agreement,, or regarding our potential cooperation between the armed federationhe russian and the united states. but i failed, because cooperation between armed forces the russian federation and the united states is prohibited congress. that's why clever american found it to be conflicting. does itunderstand what mean in english. you said maybe later you will explain me. if i -- excuse me. if i use wrong word, please don't consider that your generals are betrayers. they stick to their decisions by congress, and they are not norms, anyny prohibitions. we were in syria before this conflict. they will they are, be two militaries on the soil of
syria. based on which we are fighting against daesh in the territory of syria. understand, the same thing the united states has the same aim, to fight against daesh. us that somear for guys from the russian federation republics from the countries and our joined bandits in syria. and of course it's better for us solve this issue outside of my country. i would like to say you that possible,tes, yes, if is living on an island. at you are not protected from potential terrorist attack and
you already suffered from this disaster. times, on many occasions, we try to persuade colleagues to cooperate together. lot of that, after an attack on the united states by terrorists. sure that we are doomed sphere.eration in this in syria, we are very close to defeat daesh. maybe we need a little more that not just only time was mentioned by some officials from your administration when you wouldoned that need just only one or two days. wease, don't forget that region.ib you'll see that i decided to be prepared for you. mapsn brought some maps, for you. it depends upon what kind of raise.ns you will
if you look at this, at syria, over are some fightings there, very close to iraq. idlib,'t forget about i.d which was endorsed by russian and turkish presidents. even knows that there is a lot of terrorists who are living there. moreover, we have information this territory now occupied by terrorists. we understand that if we start tomorrow, there will be a lot of death from civil population. we didn't do it. we stick to our agreement with turkey in this regard. but at the same time you have to understand that we -- this cannot last forever.
it's a potential threat to well, because i would like to raise a question. with these we do bandits who aring living there, fighting -- who are living fighting there? do we want them in the united states? i'm sure i will get negative answer. moreover, there was a very important question raised by your administration, that you in jails onrorists this territory. this territory is controlled by the united states, by daesh -- coalition, plus by well asces, by kurds as in turkey. but there are some jails over there. are still there. so what should we do? there was a proposal from mr. trump to western european countries to take them back. i understand it, nobody
would like to see those guys in their territory, as well as the russian federation. thisuld like to solve issue far from the russian federation, it's clear. so there is, again, the u.n. council resolution, accordance54, in with which we have to make joint steps leading us not just only cease-fire but to start a peace progress. we need a little more time, as i understand. very soon there will be some announcement by the u.n. the constitutional commission, and i hope that this commission can start working. as i understand, there are some theanswers regarding composition of this constitutional commission. close to findery
a solution. like to mention that the united states appointedtion has very smart, very professional jeffery. mr. jim he's a chief negotiator from the issue.states on this like to-- i just would comment that he knows everything. he is a professional. he is a smart diplomat. i can see that he does and speed upo a lot to this process. met two russian officials from moscow. i can see that this coordination -- could i try to use another word -- coordination will be very useful for the interest of the united states and the russian federation. >> i want to turn and let others in and ask some questions, sir. before i do that, i want to come had saidomething you
earlier, and you have said certainly beyond the walls of this -- >> when we will start discussing arms control? some questionset on arms control, i assure you. >> so many questions. you said even for me. don't know what kind of answer to give you. this.i want to ask you >> but you don't like it. [laughter] >> there's clearly a fundamental is on all of that the issues we've discussed thus far. outset,tioned at the even in the coldest days of the we had still opportunities for person-to-person exchanges, for cultural, scientific exchanges. even when politics intervened, cooler heads could prevail to prevent the cold war from going hot. concerned that today, if we look at the breadth and depth of exchanges today as opposed they're ad war, ther
paltry number. the flex program, the future exchange program, so many others like that have been closed down. you.der if that concerns >> of course. you see that today i am very see that not everything destroyed by various various corners of the world. about'm talking russian-american relations, me -- could you give me one -- just only one. losing time, you see. [speaking foreign language] >> you see that... we have prepared it this year. this year. it's about russian-american cultural relations. the whole book. will find a lot of
interesting stories about russian and american artists who did a lot to develop culturalmerican relations. i will give you some of them. you say that the first is for you. [laughter] >> and i will bring other -- it's not new one. we will give you new one. [laughter] >> yeah. just, please, excuse me. it's my protocol. it's a new one. new, you will find. so i have brought with me a few copies. if you are interested to know a little more about culturalmerican relations, you will find it. culture. outer space. many, but it's a base for a potential development of relations.rican and i am sure, i am sure -- of science, education --
i'm sure that these spheres of help us,ration will diplomats and politicians, who are keen first to stablize and to facility, to develop russian-american relations. thatd are you concerned of those substate level exchanges seem to be diminishing even as the thetical relations between two countries. >> of course. i have so many concerns russian-american relations. of course, i see a lack of communication between simple, people. it's clear for me. another problem that i face of visa. is a problem cannot come to the united states due to problems with the visa. our artists cannot come as well.
just only two months ago, we washingtonnvite to of delegation of academics science. what is more important than just between the united states and russia? so i just would like to use this urge myity to relax the that let's tension between the united states and russia, at least on some -- in some spheres. it will help us to solve other outstanding issues between the and russia.s i cannot, but i say -- yesterday i got a letter. from mr. tter mr. schenncoff, a private maker, but i would like to it public.
mr. poroshenko. it's another guy. him.'t support mr. yaro shenko, he was seized by united states authorities and he already spent nine years in jail. in the state of kentucky. yes. saying,me a letter, thank you very much for your assistance. you did a lot. dor diplomats are trying to your best. but you'll see that my condition poor.s jail is very i lost many teeth. cannot eat. i have a problem with my stomach. please, could you help me? thed you persuade administration to provide me
give me opportunity to survive in this jail? do.n't know what i should yesterday i was very much upset. i would like to apply to journalists. apply to call on human rights organizations of the united states to look at this issue. and to help men who is in jail provide him medical assistance. then't want to increase quantity or quality of food. i am talking about medicine. course, we would like to take him back to the to give himration toortunity to survive, survive. his family just only recently visited the united states. now they have some problems on visa. and today i would like to use opportunity. i would like to call on you, help us. help us. to's help together
mr. shenko, just only to provide him medicines. i am not talking about the necessity to reduce a quantity has to spend in jail. >> so we are very far off the of strategic arms control now. [laughter] >> no. it's your problem, because you say i try to make presentations on issues, but there is no opportunity for me. that's why i'm forced to use any to convey this. we have not yet started arms control, because i -- hour, we're going to get into that. [laughter] >> maybe in your office. going to -- if you would be so kind, i'm going to couple questions, together here, not simultaneously, but in sequence ambassador anthe opportunity. if you would be so kind as to yourgive us your name and organization as well, sir. >> sure. leaf aaron with abc news.
americanlso an financier more recently. has there been any talk of any of prison swaps for any of these people involved, and what do you say to the accusations that russians are grabbing americans for the purpose of swapping them for russians in detention here? >> you see that i know, i am aware of the situation that you mention. course we detained some are now in the russian federation. them.ere is a decision on i am sure that all necessary steps will be taken in accordance with the legal system. but it's not fair. compare your to examples with the case of mr. shenko, who spent already nine years, nine years in american jail. fair just only to ignore that he has lost a lot of teeth. he cannot eat.
could you understand? you say there is no such problems for anybody. mentioned just only mentioned now,y in the russian federation. am sure that all appropriate steps will be taken. mr. putin is aware of the situation. eye on thisg an issue. but of course he will not be in the discussions of this issue. discussions? been >> excuse me? >> have there been discussions russian officials? >> on what? >> the potential swap. >> no. no. that we just only detained a person. we have not yet decided whether punished or not. that's why it's just only a investigation procedure.
to -- it'sit seems too premature. and the second, it's different cases. >> two questions here. this lady and this gentleman right here as well. >> just to give us a background, i did run as a democrat. what's happening since the 2016 election with hillary her team, basically blaming the russians for her defeat, i know it's not popular to question that that's actually what happened, but i do. how and even that when trump with putin, that many liberals who used to be anti-war activists are now against the two countries getting along. and so everything has gone topsy-turvy. does it mean, getting along? >> basically they think that he should be all warring and let's
fight, fight, fight. >> so you prefer to see fight, fight, fight against russia? >> many so-called liberals in the united states are now way.ing that >> it will be better. >> what? >> it will be better. bettern see, it will be to fight -- >> yes. they'd rather that there's fighting. quick question? >> just my comment. i guess your comment on this situation of what's happening in with this states strong anti-russia sentiment being fomented by the media. >> just only could i answer? that's why i'm here. i am ready to answer to any questions. i am ready to discuss with you problem that you face. and as to the meddling into toction, i just would like say, 1,000 times more. offered our we have american friends to seek together and to discuss this , first onhout anybody
the basis of confidentiality. ready to listen to their concerns. we are ready to read some documents if they are provided to us. and we are ready to negotiate on this issue. but you said there is a reluctance from the american organize such discussions. it's not just only about this issue, but on cyber security as i can see that it's very -- a burning issue to deal with. and we are losing time together, attacked byould be third party, or a at the u.n. infrastructure as well as us. for example, just only a few days ago, i just would like to threeu, that we fixed million attacks on russian ip addresses from the territory of the united states. nobody knows about it. but it's a reality. so should i say today that interferings is
into internal affairs of russian federation? like to say this issue and just would like to invite my american colleagues to this issue.sing to understand who these guys are attacking russian i.p. addresses. that's all. again and again, you see i'm audience.ome to any i'm ready to discuss any issue of mutual interest. to narrowld like misunderstanding between the united states and russia. was very much, i criticized, due to my comments results of russian-american health care. time in my life that i was criticized for positive words about the united states. understand that again it was a mistake. but i can see that it is very see our presidents sitting together, dealing with issues, important
issues not of mutual concern but concern of international community. first of all, arms control and disarmament. oury to return back to potential future discussion. >> sir? >> thank you. can i ask you about the summit. the expectations out of that summit, that there would be strategic security dialogue, responsibility dialogue. but it failed to materialize. do you know what happened with that? and also, is there any dialogue new start on any level between the u.s. and russia? thatwould like to say you after the helsinki summit, there chiefeetings between our of security council and mr. bolton. discussionstations, were very effective. and these consultations -- and our politicians covered all
armstant issues regarding control and bilateral relations between our two countries. so i can add to what i just mentioned, that we would like to have more. first of all, you say that of to see myould like minister of foreign affairs as well as the minister of defense the unitede to states and to sit together with and topunterparts restart a dialogue, two plus two. important. previously we had a dialogue at ministers ofdeputy foreign affairs. wasmember the last day, it our deputy minister of foreign affairs. was -- hmm?de, it schenn? yes. formernnon, a undersecretary of united states. very much when i had a
conversation, dialogue, at the of the ministers of defense. my counterpart was jim miller. know him. it was a very important and useful conversation regarding arms control. >> gentleman in the back. >> i wanted to ask an arms control questions. >> just only journalists who are sitting here, yes? [laughter] >> can you comment on whether russia would agree to any sort limitation on tactical nuclear weapons in the process of negotiation of a treaty to start? >> it's just only one piece of a problem that we face. you'll see that. i am not sure that we have to concentrate on this issue. only would like to bring
you another map. maybe there will be some questions for you, for you. you understand. it's a map of europe. europe in part. as well as the european part of federation. we are very much concerned that after the decision of the united withdraw from inf, missiles could be deployed on territory of european allies. you'll see that it's my military office, who have this map. you will see how many covered by could be american missiles. it's very burning issue. technical issue, because we can't return back to the of the 1987, before -- inf treaty.ed the
i just would like to draw your situation.o this and potential situation. we will be forced, we will be forced to deploy our missiles, and here you will see that the whole territory over european countries will be covered. i just would like to say you that when we are talking about tactical nuclear weapons as well as inf capabilities, we are talking about the security of european countries as well as inf is not dealing with the security of the united states, because such systems cannot reach a territory of the united states. it's very important to understand. after?the loser after you see the dismantling of inf? countries as well as russia, because a new our security we
will face, very soon. and we have to avoid such a situation. we have to avoid such a situation. i interrupt you, but that's why you see that we lotsee that we have to do a steps to saveonal this system of arms control that is still existent. just only inf and the treaty. in two years, there will be nothing. how we will live? you see that without any everybody could any directionto that country wants. please don't forget about mpp. 2020, there will be a conference and there will be a non-nuclear weapon states who will torture united states, france.china, u.k. and they will ask a question, what to implement mpt, as
it is? especially article six, regarding nuclear disarmament. and i would like -- no, i don't to participate in this conference, because it will be a disaster. want to be shamed and blamed by them. but it's the reality, because we to this very important, crucial, crucial point with nothing. you see that next year, it will be clear what kind of decision the united states could take ofarding the extension strategy. willpe that united states take a decision in accordance with the wishes of american the people of as the whole world. to discuss this issue together. you'll see that again, all our proposals are on the table. what i cannot urge -- i cannot today,ited states because it is a prohibition by
my president to do it. >> that's a lot of bad news, ambassador. >> it's news that all proposals are still on the table. positives end on a note. are there areas of cooperation between the united states and 30 seconds welast have here, that don't get attention? >> afghanistan. it's very important for us to together. mention, for't nuclear safetyr set consists of many treaties, in thisangements regard. it seems to me that the main seems to me, for the people of the united states as well as the russian is the potential -- between weapons of mass destruction. together. be we have excellent instruments in
the u.n. that could --0 that has created a good base for our cooperation. what we should do just only to what we endorsed a few years ago. so you see that there are other issues, of course, to discuss. only touched some elements, by human exchanges. that there is a lack of communication between our people. please, i just would like to remind you, and i would like to note. on the positive i was very much surprised. sixth street. there was a residence over a russian ambassador. universityclose to club. university club. and you see that sometimes i am lazy, but sometimes i
visited this club. was very much surprised that in the beginning of my stay see that many guys tv's, cnn and other channels about russian election.nto but when world soccer came, everybody was focused just only event. and i was very much surprised, when all guys came to me saying was excellent. and everybody in the united states was in favor of the federation, in favor of russia. i would like to say that was upset.ch all my colleagues were upset, lost theiran team opportunity to go to moscow. can you imagine a beautiful statesetween the united and russia? let's wait for a while. [laughter] >> next time we will schedule a can longer period where we discuss strategic arms control.
but i -- >> maybe -- >> i want to thank you for joining us. you.ank thank you. [applause] >> please, my dear friends, take the diaries about culture.merican my colleague, he will distribute it, if you want, if you want. that's not for distribution. >> let me just ask you all hold on for two minutes while we let the ambassador out to the elevators. thank you.
>> tonight on the communicators, we are on capitol hill with john thune, who chairs the commerce and science subcommittee and the ranking member on the house, energy and subcommittee to discuss high-speed broadband service and neutrality. >> i'm very much interested in 5g, in spectrum availability, interested in autonomous vehicles, very much iterested in privacy, which think has the potential to be a big bipartisan accomplishment of this congress. i think both sides, in the house and senate and republicans and toocrats, realize we've got have some sort of a national privacy standard or law that will protect people's information. >> we had a meeting on privacy. one of the big issues out there,
you're absolutely right. we can't have states going out and doing their own thing. have 50 states and the district of columbia coming up with this. it just won't work. we have to have a national standard out there that everyone understands. >> watch the communicators 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. a look at prime time on the c-span networks. starting at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, with a house hearing on rights,a bill on voting campaign finance and ethics rules which the house is set to debate this week. at 8:30 on c-span two, remarks the labor secretary, the white house counselor, and the senator ernst at the legislative conference in washington, d.c. 7:00 eastern on c-span 3, chief executive officers from seven prescription drug testifying on drug pricing.
tomorrow, the senate health committee will hold a hearing on done to and what can be prevent disease outbreaks, live tuesday at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. wednesday, testimony from homeland security secretary kirstjen neilson on immigration issues.er security live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. ♪[music] tothe only thing we have fear is fear itself! >> ask not what your country can do for you. can do for your country. >> and the people who knocked buildings down will -- [cheering] >> c-span's newest book "the noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives" provides
insights into the lives of the 44 american presidents, true interviews.ered by explore the life events that shaped our leaders. challenges they faced. and the legacies they have left behind. affairs, it public will be on shelves april 23. can preorder your copy e-bookhard cover or today at c-span.org/the presidents, or wherever books are sold. >> next, supreme court justice discussing her life and career. book sheent children's has written. she answered questions from the audience and was introduced by actress eva longoria. this is an hour and 10 minutes. [cheering]