conflicts. that has been losing strength, that has been losing a certain amount of a lot of people don t remember how it was. so we have found first a need to reaffirm, see what is relevant today and secondly to reach out. those principles were sort of formed and set down in what was essentially a dominating world. we now have a much larger world. we were keen to look at the possibilities of writing something thereat would resonate all over the world, eniran, indonesia and japan and eventually see if it s possible, we could also have it resonate in some of the countries that you alluded to. steve hadly, the problem a lot of people say is that the united states have lost faith in this liberal world order.
first of all. essentially it s easier to blow up agreements than it is to make agreements, especially with this particular american president. you know, it is an interesting fact of arms control that the russians and soviets before them have always been very invested in some ways, as seeing this first of all as confirmation of their power status. vladimir putin is eager to appear on the world stage as someone the united states needs to sit down and negotiate with. speaking with people who enjoy being on the world stage, steve hadly, we are in for a new tru trump-kim jong-un summit. do you worry that the president is so eager to get that nobel peace prize that shinzo abe has already nominated him for that he might cut a deal that isn t in america s interest? no, i m not worried about that. he has given the lead on this to
something that avoids a new nuclear race over the continent of europe. susan glasser, you have a foreign correspondent in moskow i think when george w. bush, steve hadly really, withdrew from the abm treaty for similar kinds of reasons. do you think that there is a plan here that the trump administration has? because there s a plausible case to be made that, you know, these treaties need to cover the new nuclear powers like china. and maybe that this is a way to go forward. or is this just an active peak? this is a legacy we have of a cold war that is three decades in our past, on the one hand. on the other habd i m struck by the fact that right now carl talked about the possibility of negotiations but i didn t come out of munich feeling there were any imminent plans to do so,
indeed have to admit is quite popular with young people for that reason, he s convincing people that s his agenda. he has orchestrated one of the most intense crack downs on dissent, for what passes as media and even on women who seeked to exercise in ways that depart modestly from the script he s putting in place. you also have to judge his performance and his capability of implicating a modernization agenda against the operations he s managed up to the this point, which includes the most devastating war from yemen which again doesn t get any coverage, why? because it s a dangerous place to be, and mainly because saudi arabia doesn t allow journalists into yemen. so i think to the degree and i think that the question, fareed, as you posted about or steve posted about whether the united states can get in the business of picking princes, that s a very dangerous i would say
the saudis did what they did, the saudis deny, and the saudis acknowledge khashoggi was in fact killed and now the most recent twist was the fact it was premeditated. what is the intelligence community s rally? are you going to positively confirm the turkish version of events, and what do you need to tell the president? craw, so what you need to do is to give the president your best view of what constitutes objective reality. what exactly did happen. steve and i know, you could be wrong about your objective view. we ve got life experience there, all right? but it s got to be your best shot of what constitutes objective reality. is the unpleasant fact in this case that this killing was probably directed from the highe highest echelons of the saudi government? from the outside looking in,