tv Russian Ambassador to the U.S. CSPAN January 2, 2018 2:16am-3:21am EST
intellectual resources. how do we think about fighting these potential conflicts in the future differently? >> you can see the discussion from the reagan national defense , california valley tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. tour himspan bus continues its tour with stops in raleigh, columbia, atlanta, and montgomery. we will speak to state officials during our live "washington journal" program. join us in january 16 at 930 a.m. eastern for our stop in raleigh, north carolina when our guest is the north carolina attorney general josh stein. discussion on the state of u.s.-russian relations with the russian ambassador to the u.s. this was posted by the world affairs council of northern
california. amb. antonov: >> thank you very much. it is a great honor to be here. i would like to thank the world u.s. counsel for this opportunity and it is very important to discuss a burning issue. together, doe do we need each other? are we partners? are we enemies? who we are, the u.s. and the russian federation. on? i don't want to blame anyone
for the current situation in russian-american relations, but today is the first official remarks by me as an ambassador
for the russian federation to the united states. [applause] amb. antonov: i am not a magician. >> i want you to stop killing in chechnya. stop killing gay people in chechnya. i want gay people left alone in chechnya. we need to protect gay people. stop killing gay
chechnyans. stop killing gay chechnyans. stop killing gay chechnyans. stop killing gay chechnyans. [applause]
[crowd noise] amb. antonov: you can see our relations are complicated. it seems to me everybody has the right to explain what he wants. how he can see how he sees the current situation. it seems to me i also have the right to convey a few remarks to you, trying to explain how we in the russian federation understand the current situation in russian-american relations. i would like to explain to you how we understand the importance of russian-american relations. i don't want to offend anyone. i would like to be candid with you. i would like to be transparent with you. i hope there will be another opportunity for me to come here.
i hope i will not disappoint you and you will invite me once more. [applause] amb. antonov: they will be official remarks and then i will be ready to discuss any issue, including what i heard from that guy. over the recent years, the russian-american relations have suffered severe degradation and are far from good shape. unprecedentedith -- to discredit russia in an effort to punish our country for protecting its interest in pursuing independent policy. regrettably, relations between our countries are still being politicized and abused.
russia is being graham leslie groundlessly accused of meddling into the united states's elections, and other domestic and external problems of the united states. the expulsion of russian diplomats, seizure and search of our diplomatic property, along with the removal of state flags of the russian federation, infringement of rights of the russian media, all these actions are destroying the foundation of the russian-american federation. the russian threat is constantly used as a pretext to strengthen the solidarity
-- which takes forms of military planning. a clear example is all the hype around military exercises in 2017 conducted by russia and belarus in september. we were accused of preparing for invasion of the baltic countries for occupation of ukraine. there were rumors that once the exercise was over the russian troops would remain in belarus. none of this happened. it was all fake news. [crowd noise] however, the united states, canadian, german and british contingents which were pulled up under the pretext of this have stayed and are still there in the proximity of the russian borders. comments are unnecessary. the fact we are not welcome at the u.s. congress, a place where
all kinds of commissions and investigations on so-called russians this year take place speaks for itself. members of the russian parliament reached out on multiple occasions to their american counterparts with an invitation to visit moscow or to meet in the united states. no reaction followed. by the way, i have not succeeded in arranging a meeting at the capital either. it is very strange for me. there is no opportunity for russian diplomats to explain how we understand the current situation in the united states, how we explain the relationship and the russian-american federation to congress. they don't want to speak or maybe they are scared to speak to me and my colleagues. but how it is possible to construct bilateral relations.
relations between the u.s. and the russian federation. mr. pruitt has received me on the eve of my departure for the u.s. and one message i got from pragmatic, need equal relations between the u.s. and the russian federation. ne should not forget that russia and the u.s. i permit members of the u.s. security council and two nuclear powers bear extra responsibility for maintaining global peace and security. therefore, despite all negativity, we should not shut off from one another.
not look back at the past, but rather follow the strategic vision of our common goals. it is clear the russian and united states interests intertwine when it comes to the fight against global terrorism. there is a context within the russian and united states presidents on the sidelines of the asia-pacific summit in vietnam, in a joint statement of syria that our countries need each other. they are coordinating their efforts to defeat isis and achieve a stable political settlement in syria. we are united in necessity to address the challenge of nonproliferation of weapons of mass distraction. the fact that we have not reduced our efforts to resolve the iranian nuclear program and to destroy syria's chemical weapons despite our strong disagreements over the ukrainian crisis speaks volumes. today, developments surrounding north korean nuclear program are quite serious. in this regard, i would like to
emphasize that russia, as well as the united states, does not accept the nuclear state of north korea. we have consistently advocated the denuclearization of the korean peninsula, but this issue can only be settled through a negotiated solution by diplomatic means. it would be inadvisable to test the strength of the north korean leadership and provoke a rash countermeasure. russia is committed to the joint comprehensive plan of actions on the iranian nuclear program as a successful example of preparation and an essential factor of regional stability. we consider it important for the participants of the plan to remove existing differences from the agenda for negotiations without reconsidering the agreement itself. it is evident, should the plan fail, it would be an alarming signal for the whole or to national security system, including resolving the nuclear problem of the korean peninsula.
the issue of strategic stability and arms control was and continues to be one of the key points in russian-american relations. our bilateral relations have never been suspended, even given the most intense period of the cold war. over the past 50 years, joint efforts of both countries resulted in the creation of a legal base for the modern system of international security. therefore the russian-american cooperation has a crucial impact on key global processes. it is one of the pillars of the current world order. with that said, we consider the intent of the russian and united states presidents to develop a best develop relations in the spirit of balance of interest and search for mutually beneficial agreements to be
highly important, which was confirmed in a recent telephone conversation between vladimir putin and donald trump. our countries need to restore a broken means of communication. it is hardly possible to agree on anything through remote and minimal contact with one another. lack of communication leads to growing mutual distress, especially in the political circles of the united states which has made an unflattering image of russia. this suggests our american counterparts to resume functional dialogue between our
security council, defense agencies, intelligence services, members of parliaments. at the same time we should get rid of everything artificial which burdens our cooperation, removing multiple irritants and bilateral relations. the most sensible topic is the return of the diplomatic property, which was seized from us. it is a paradox, as we have not only been deprived of our property, but not even allowed to check the buildings. what possible threats do the ambassador's visit to our compounds cause to the united states security? we still get a negative answer. to enter russian property, russian buildings, nobody cares to specify the reasons. what we heard from state department is just only, you have no permission to enter russian property.
it would be important to establish a joint working group on cyber security in order to dispel doubts regarding who interferes where, what was the goal and whether intervention real happened, or was this just idle speculation? so far, the american side's failed to provide any evidence. we are just being told the united states cannot present the facts because there is a classified information. that way, one can come up with any charges so as to avoid speaking to the point. point. cultural and humanitarian ties, as well as social context that helped strengthen mutual understanding and trust among our citizens are of great importance. this area is less exposed to political environment, and it is
definitely expected to bring positivity to bilateral relations. our common history is one of the topics that brings the two nations together. this year, we are celebrating many milestones. nobody is talking about it, but i would like to mention the 210th anniversary of establishing the russian-american diplomatic relations. 200th anniversary of the arrival of the russian fleet in hawaii. 150th anniversary of the agreement to purchase alaska. the 80th anniversary of the legendary flight of the crew from moscow to vancouver. washington state. our priority is to lay out economic groundwork for the russian-american relations, which would secure them from
irregularities of the political atmosphere. the volumes of bilateral trade and investments do not meet the economic potential of both countries. the trade volume never surpassed the modest sum of $40 billion. in 2016, it was $20 billion. i would likeime, to emphasize, despite sanctions, we host about 3000 american companies with almost 180,000 employees and $75 billion worth of aggregate assets in russia. on a regular basis, the american companies confirm they have no intention of leaving russia. extra proof is the unprecedented success of the international economic forum held in june 2017, during which the united states delegation managed to set
an attendance record of 556 representatives from 140 companies. that's a quarter of all companies registered at the forum. it was highly important to present positive aspects of the russian-american relations during the current complicated political circumstances. it consumes arctic science and space expiration. american astronauts fly our soyuz spacecraft. russian-made rd-180 engines are being acquired by the u.s. to deliver payloads for nasa and the pentagon. furthermore, the rd-181 engine is used to deliver cargo to the
international space station. there are plans for joint implementation of large-scale projects that could serve as communication to the international space station. in september 2017, russian space agency and nasa signed a statement on cooperation in creating the deep space gateway lunar station. one could say, in space, we cooperate better than on the ground. russia effectively implements the mega grants program, attracting leading foreign scientists on research and scientific rate through in our country. over the six years of the work, 160 world-class laboratories were created with plenty of grant recipients being american scientists have moved back in
their days. the ties between russia and america across the pacific ocean were always unique. starting for the russian-american company and its activities in alaska, to the settlement of russian pioneers in california, from the second world war land lease program, in particular with nearly 8000 airplanes and ships moved from montana through alaska. to the oil and gas fields. the latter have forever changed the fate of the far east and transformed the russian islands into one of the leading energy suppliers of the asia-pacific region. california has taken a major place in the relations between our two countries.
we have the chevron corporation working for a long time in russia, along with transnet as the operator of the caspian pipeline consortium to deliver kozak oil to the seaports. 1990's, the oil machinery of the caterpillar company supplying large construction machinery and equipment to the russian far east. thousands of employees from russia work in the flagship high-tech companies in silicon valley. cisco, microsoft, google to name a few. the russian-american pacific partnership has been active for more than 20 years. it is a unique platform for dialogue, which brings together officials and businessmen in the regions of the russian far east and the united states west coast. the state of california is among the leaders of the bilateral interregional cooperation.
over the past years it has established contact with republican of kazakstan. this is mostly due to the efforts of the state's current leadership, governor jerry brown, who in september posted the economic forum in vladivostok to get acquainted with the economic potential of russia and the far east. dialogue, a bilateral for initiating political and business circles, taking place in united states and now with russia, as well as place -- as well as plays increasing role in developing ties between the regions of russia and the united states. it has proven itself to be an important and formal platform for dialogue and development over positive bilateral agenda which are countries desperately need. agenda, which our countries
desperately need. in conclusion, i would like to remind you that this december marks the 210th anniversary of diplomatic ties between russia and the united dates. back in 1787, american president thomas jefferson wrote to the russian emperor alexander i. "i am certain that russia is the most friendly nation to us." the russian president vladimir putin has repeatedly stated we are not picking fight with the united states, and have always had a positive attitude towards the american people. when we stood together, we always achieve success. that is how it has happened during the american war of independence, the first and second world wars.
we honestly want the bilateral political atmosphere normalized. i genuinely hope we will not remain hostages of each other's own prejudice. we cannot allow mutual complaints to undermine our ability to effectively respond to the measured security challenges of the 21st century. thank you very much. [applause] join us for the most interesting part of our conversation. [laughter] thank you very much for those remarks and for laying out the whole agenda of cooperation, potential cooperation between russia and the united states.
amb. anatov: not only potential. history of our relations, the current status of our relations and the potential. mr. holloway: potential. yes, but we are at a point where relations between our countries are probably in worst states and -- states and then they have been since the late 1980's, certainly since the end of the cold war. there is a great deal of mistrust, and you are the new prussian ambassador in washington. the u.s. has a new ambassador in moscow, jon huntsman. when he presented his credentials to president putin last month, he said, i look forward to working to rebuild trust between our two countries, and a strengthening the bilateral relationship based on cooperation on common interests.
it sounds to me, from the remarks you made, that would also be a fair description of how you see your mission here in the united states. amb. anatov: you are right. of course, it is difficult to start working in the united states nowadays, frankly. as i mentioned to my new friends before our meeting, you said the first news i got when i left my plane was the decision of the united states regarding the seizure of the consulate in san francisco. my daughter has sent me a message saying, father, be prepared. it is a lot of journalists who would like to see you and get some remarks from you. instead of going to my house, i was forced to go to embassy to start working. what to do under such circumstances. frankly, it is difficult, but my
official remarks, please, it is a lot of positive elements in our history. even during the cold war, we reached drastic agreements regarding nuclear arsenals. don't forget about the treaties, like imf, stadd treaty. these treaties are still alive. it's very important that the united states and the russian federation consider important to sit together and to tackle this issue. as i mentioned, it is my understanding -- not remarks i got from moscow -- it is from my heart. when we are together, we can do a lot. one diplomat mentioned during my
courtesy call to him, if the united states and russia -- we can face the problem of north korea. when you are together, the whole world can sleep well. [laughter] mr. holloway: let me follow up on the issue of nuclear weapons which you mentioned. the u.s. and russia are the dominant nuclear weapons powers. you head of the delegation that negotiated the new start treaty. so, my question is, you mentioned the treaties are healthy, but there is some commentary now that arms control as we have known it is not in a healthy state. i don't believe we have formal treaty negotiations going on. the imf treaty is under criticism from both sides.
are we at the end of arms control as we have known it, or is this a temporary pause? if we don't have arms control as we have known it, how do we manage our nuclear relationship? amb. anatov: first of all, i would like to repeat your words. we need more trust. it's impossible to start negotiations tomorrow. it is necessary to make a lot of preparation work for this. i remember 2009 and 2008, we started our negotiations with the united states. you had excellent team, professional team, smart team led by your former undersecretary. it was very difficult for her, because there was a gap of negotiations between the united states and russia.
it was necessary to create something special for such negotiations, and for the russian federation, it was difficult to do the same. but we managed and we agreed. we spent about -- you say 15, 17 hours per day together, trying to understand what kind of concerns we had at the time. of course, we can be criticized today by our opponents regarding the provisions of these documents, but at the time it was the best solution in the interest of the american and russian people. you are right. we have bilateral conversations on various issues of arms control, nonproliferation, and sometimes we have some differences. but we are great nations. we have our own interests, national interests. it's important to respect
national interest of each other. if we can see such from our partners, under any circumstances we can find a solution. it seems to me that it's important to continue such strategic dialogue. strategical means disarmament, nonproliferation, arms-control altogether in one bottle. if i can say so. it is important to continue such dialogue, even taking into account the current situation with russian-american relations. we have started such dialogue, and there are two delegations from the russian side led by our deputy minister, and from the united states led by mr. shannon. a smart, experienced professional diplomat. i met him and discussed some issues. strategic stability. mr. holloway: when you think about a strategy for improving
russian relations with the u.s., in your position, you laid out many areas of cooperation we've had in the past. i take that point, and also potential areas in the future. which, to you, look to be the most promising in terms of moving the relationship forward? amb. anatov: maybe you will be surprised, but as professor said, i served six years at the minister of defense. it was difficult, frankly, for the diplomat to be in the minister of defense. but i got a lot of knowledge, experience. i would like to say the -- to say, despite the differences between the military commands, it seems to me we are close to making a breakthrough on the cooperation between the
pentagon and the ministry of defense. we have common goals. we have to get a victory over isis. we are very close. we are together in syria. we are fighting against global terrorism. it seems to me the great potential capabilities we have. it's very important not to think about just only national interests, but necessary to look at this problem from a global point of view to understand what we get if we can achieve victory over this devil. i understand maybe you're not satisfied with my answer, but i'm sure that a great potential for our cooperation in the military sphere. i don't want to repeat what we already have.
it is the base for a future cooperation. the next issue i can say -- i can mention. for example, it is north korea. we are members of security council, and we are very much concerned with what is going on in north korea. as i mentioned, we never recognized north korea as a nuclear weapon state. we are together with the united states. there is a difference how to achieve this goal. we are in favor of diplomatic means and tools. we are a little concern the united stateshat that, how to say in a diplomatic way? sometimes uses very sensitive rhetoric regarding the possible or potential actions in that region.
we are very much concerned. you say north korea is our neighbor, and i have repeatedly said to my colleagues it is easy to change a wife but difficult to change a neighbor. [laughter] amb. anatov: we are neighbors with the north korea. we are very much concerned. we have very short boundaries. we have such a boundary. we have calm down our emotions. we don't recognize and we don't support. for interrupting peace and progress.
at the same time, we are nuclear weapons states. be -- we are permanent members of the security council. we have to be very cautious regarding our potential actions in that region. mr. holloway: you say diplomacy is the way to go. i think, in spite of the rhetoric you referred to so diplomatically, that also is the official position of the united states. diplomacy is the way to resolve the issue. the question is how? amb. anatov: you say if i'm a magician, you say that for this issue. i don't know. there is only one option. only one outcome. so engage them in negotiations. discussions how to freeze
activities and, at the same, time they would like the united states, south korea, japan to freeze joint exercises. not to provoke north korea for the next missile test and nuclear tests. you say that to calm down emotions, sit together and talk. the russian federation will help and we are ready to be together with the united states, with other permanent members of the security council. mr. holloway: all right. i'm now getting questions from the audience. i think we can perhaps -- amb. anatov: maybe you will choose the tough one. mr. holloway: i'm looking for the toughest one. i have given you a couple easy questions to make you feel relaxed. [laughter] in the spirit of cooperation.
it goes without saying. you make some remarks. i have heard you are a tough negotiator. that is a compliment. she will never say i am tough negotiator. she could say i am smart. [laughter] amb. anatov: you say we respect each other. if there is opportunity for me, i would like to convey her best regards. it is difficult for her to be in brussels now, to deal with those russians. [laughter] mr. holloway: i think perhaps i was paraphrasing. i meant in the sense of smart. you know what your position is. you negotiate hard, but you did reach an agreement.
what i'm interested in asking you is, you have referred to a number of things in united states. in your view, all the stuff made about russian interference in our election in 2016. i would like to come back to that question later. i wanted to ask you a broader question. what, looking back, could russia have done differently to avoid getting into this position? amb. anatov: i know, i know. i would like to remember some ideas i heard in moscow in
various corners in our government, as well as our ministry of foreign affairs, as well is the ministry of defense. i explain but i need to say this. we were very much flexible towards western countries. we consider it is very easy to come to a compromise with united states and other western countries. we try to show flexibility, too much flexibility. i explain to you. i participated in various rounds of negotiations at g-8. you remember, there was such a forum. when russia was a member of the g-8. i was responsible for arms control and nonproliferation. i remember, when i agreed with western countries, i was the
good guy, smart guy, professional guy. when i started to say let's come to another decision, you said it does not meet my concerns. i need some other phrases in the final document. i became tough negotiator. mr. holloway: that's a compliment. [laughter] amb. anatov: the same situation if i hope many of you know about the situation with arms control in europe. conventional forces in europe, and so on. i don't want to torture you with such formulas. you said from one side there were western countries and from another side with the russian federation. when we are together, everything was fine.
when i said, come on, you said that i don't understand nato. i don't understand decisions made in brussels. you consider, i mean the my colleagues from europe and the united states, you consider that the threat is coming from south of europe, from iran. yes, i understand it is possible you have such concerns. and even you consider it is the threat. but why nato is coming to my boundary? you have to go to the south. what is the problem with my country? you say, i suddenly discovered from intelligence sources, the ministry of defense it is a lot of intelligence. planes are flying along the boundary between nato countries and russia. for what purpose? i will explain we are trying to
protect our countries from terrorism. please. what kind of terrorism? what are you talking about? i don't understand you. that's why i would like just only to give you one example. it was my concern. i failed to get concrete answer on this issue. it seems to me, if during maybe at the beginning of the century we were more tough, more understandable for western countries, maybe we would not face the current status of our relations. by the way, it was said by my president, mr. putin. mr. holloway: thank you very much. let me now turn to the question of the election, which is, well, must dominate the headlines.
which is the source of a great deal of distrust, because the sense -- partly because the election was so close. partly because of the evidence of the statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was an influence campaign that the u.s. -- sorry the russian , federation engaged in different kinds of trolling, different kinds of advertising and someone, -- and so on hacking and releasing documents to wikileaks. that playing itself out, or at
least going through a whole procedure, a process of dealing with that in one way or another. what is your response? your president has denied you engaged in those. amb. anatov: you would like for me that i agree? i will go to moscow. [laughter] mr. holloway: i'm not asking you to challenge that, but i'm asking you how you think then that she mentioned this at the beginning how it affects the relationship. how is this going to play out? amb. anatov: the situation is really delicate and complicated. sometimes i raise a question to myself. where the american people have more problems with the russian interference in the election?
i just explained to some colleagues in this room, saying a few weeks ago i visited chicago. i entered hotel, switched on the tv. i saw cnn showing or trying to prove that russia interfered into the united states' elections. i changed my suit. then i visited a restaurant where we had excellent dinner with my friends. returned back to my hotel room and what do i see? the same. the same. three hours. just only about what? there are gossips, intelligence reports regarding russian interference into american relations. you say we raised this issue with our counterparts many times.
the question from them. if they have opportunity to put proofs on the table, at least one or two proofs, it was mentioned we hijacked or we interfered into a democratic party website and so on and so on. but specialists in cyber security know it is easy to interfere in your computer. for example, from singapore. but it is possible to keep fingerprints in russia. there is a real problem, cyber security. we have offered our american friends to sit together and look at this problem. to find out what kind of problems, what kind of security challenges we face today.
and to discuss how do we cooperate together. i do think that we were in favor one way or another in the united states. i see you are smiling. i understand what it means. you say it is up to you to decide. please raise the question to yourself. what kind of system you have it -- have if anybody can penetrate it? [laughter] amb. anatov: that was said by all of your presidents, the united states is superpower. nobody can defeat it. please, what has happened with your security? [crowd noise] end, thatay: in the is not, to many americans, a convincing response to say we do every thing perfectly because we are a superpower.
i just recall the raising glasses of champagne in the duma when the election results came out. they are elected members. amb. anatov: that was you also, raising glasses of champagne. mr. holloway: let me put it in a broader context. this is -- your denials have not stopped the process going on. it is going to play itself out. in what way, i don't know. there is a general problem, and this perhaps should be a topic for mutual discussion. what impact do social media have on what we see as fundamentals of democracy? namely the possibility of open discussion.
the possibility of transparency and access to facts when we discuss the policies we want our governments to pursue or when we are electing people to parliaments or congress. i think the big issue, whether what is important here is the particular scandal or the more general issue of what is changing. i'm wondering if that is the kind of area in which it would be fruitful to have cooperation, not only in relation to social media but also artificial intelligence for example. amb. anatov: it seems to me it is high time for our intelligence and counterintelligence services to sit together in closed room, to discuss this issue, to find solutions, to get answers on this issue. and to stop speculation regarding the meddling of
russia. maybe it is not russia. maybe it is another country. i see a lot of cameras and that is why don't want to name other countries. of particular interest to united states, because they raise speculation. why the russian federation? is it just only because of the problem between democrats and republicans? i do not want it to interfere in your internal relations. i would just like to answer your question. my proposal to you, you meaning the united states, to restore sensitive links of communications between our counterintelligence and security workingto start together.
i will repeatedly say we are not enemies. we are partners. we were allies in the second world war and we are fighting global terrorism. it is high time for us to have constructive discussions about open and transparent discussions about security challenges that we face. if we have concerns, we have openly discussed them by fitting together, but not through mass media. it is very easy to speak through mass media. just only to send one signal, to say, come on, you see i have one paper here. very sensitive information, but i cannot disclose you, because, if i do not want to betray my friend who has provided me this information, but i would like to see you privately. the united states -- i don't want to continue this sentence.
i will smile you. that is all. now the mass media will take this information and it will be speculation among journalists. it will be good fake news. our time is: running out, unfortunately. there are so many issues to discuss. i have two questions i want to raise with you. one is ukraine. this is a major issue in our relations, the u.s. and indeed the european union have taken a strong stance on annexation of crimea. we have the continuing, low-level conflict in the eastern part of ukraine. these are -- sanctions were imposed in response to russian policy. this is a major obstacle to the improvement of relations.
how do you think the issue can be resolved? amb. anatov: you have raise so many questions. it seems to me we need two hours more. first of all, i would like to disagree regarding the annexation of crimea. i do not want to waste your time to explain you the russian position on the issue. there was a vote organized by the people of crimea, and they decided to join us. by the way, do you know i am under the sanctions of the european union, and i would like revalue top secrets from the european union, for what purpose i am on the top list? we have got secret information from europe that i run russian troops and had taken one of the
towns of ukraine. personally. and diplomatic way. and because of my failure, you say that we didn't capture or sees that town. you can check it. due to the action, i have to be put on the stop list. come on. you say that i am diplomat, and everybody knows what i have done. i was responsible for international relations and military relations between ministry of defense and other ministries of other countries. it is stupid. i do not know what kind of fake information from whom that they took this. frankly, you say we are very much concerned.
a lot of my offices had various relatives and they entered my office saying, mr. deputy minister, what is going on, we don't understand. you say that they -- i mean, ukrainian counterparts said we are attacking our relatives houses, so they think that we could kill our mothers and fathers. now the situation is a different one. we -- you say we have agreement. please don't forget russia is not a part of the conflict. everything is mentioned in the agreement. there is a sequence in this, elements, what should be done first? theiry withdrawal or
cease-fire. be the withdrawal of heavy armament ammunitions, and other elements. there is a problem now of how to fulfill it. there was a request from western countries to protect peacekeepers, monitors, let's call them. monitors from overseas. mr. putin has decided to help and has decided to agree with an idea to protect these on both sides. that is all. you say these other ideas, to create a peacekeeping operation in this region. we do not want russian people to be killed. like it happened in odessa, other towns. we would like guarantees, from western countries and the united
states, that russian people who are leaving their will not be killed. willo are leaving there not be killed. that is why, all elements to protect lives of citizens, ordinary people are stipulated in the agreement. we, unfortunately, have run out of our own time here. i want to ask everyone to join antn thanking ambassador onov for addressing so many issues. [applause] amb. anatov: i would like to say thank you very much. i understand maybe you're not satisfied with all of the
answers for your questions, but i would like to confirm i'm ready to continue our dialogue, our conversation. you say that if you like me, maybe we will choose one specific topic. you will say one of them, for example, tomorrow i will make a presentation. nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, these are very important and it seems to me they are crucial for the united states and the russia federation. by the way, the united states and russian federation are bound by many agreements in nuclear and conventional and nuclear forces, but not all nuclear powers have the same limitation that the united states and russia have. we have a lot of questions to discuss. thank you very much. thank you very much for your attention. [applause]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [inaudible conversations] >> this weekend, these bands cities tour takes you to springfield, missouri. media comeing with to explore the literary scene and history of the birthplace of route 66 in southwestern missouri. saturday at noon eastern on book tv, and author talks about the conflict occurring along the kansas-missouri border in the struggle over slavery in his book. next in 1858, john brown comes in 1850the territory --
eight, john brown comes back to the territory in a series of raids, during which his men will liberate enslaved people from missouri and help them escape. in the course of this, they will kill a number of slaveholders. round -- off john john brown arose as part of this struggle. people understand it is the beginning of the civil war. at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv, we visit the nra national sporting arms museum. >> theodore roosevelt was probably overshootingest -- our -- our shootingest president. preparedparticularly for roosevelt. it has the presidential seal engraved on the breach, and of course, roosevelt was famous for the bull moose party.
there is one engraved on the side plate of this gun. ofwatch c-span's city tour springfield, missouri saturday at noon eastern on c-span twos book tv, and sending it to :00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3, working with her keeper also edits -- working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. thehe second session of 115th congress cap underway this week with the senate returning on wednesday. that they will see the swearing-in of two new democratic lawmakers, doug jones and tina smith. the house returns the following week on monday. in the new year, congress faces a government funding deadline with temporary spending set to expire january 19. also, this year's state of the union address from president sessionfore the joint of congress. you can watch the house live on c-span and see the senate on c-span two.
every month for the past 20 years, one of the nations top nonfiction authors has joined us on our in-depth program for a fascinating three-hour conversation about their work. just for 2018, in-depth is changing course. we have invited 12 fiction authors. authors of historical fiction, national security drillers, science writers, social commentators. their books have been read -- have been read by millions across the country and world. if you are a reader, plan to join us for in-depth on book tv. it is an interactive program the first sunday of every month that lets you call in and talk directly to your favorite authors. it all kicks off on sunday, january 7 at noon with a washington post columnist and an
author of 10 national security drillers. on sunday, lived january 7, or watch it on demand on book tv.org. on washington journal, here from a number of radio talkshow hosts from around the country. they share their thoughts on what to expect in the new year and the message to washington in 2018. here is a look. morning,ng a soft this the syndicated talkshow host from new hampshire. good morning. happy new year. >> happy new year to you. about messagesng to be delivered to washington in 20. what would be at the top of your list? >> the greatest i concern from -- the greatest concern from 2017 is a message to america a messareally
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on