Given the background of the russia gate hysteria hoax and the antipathy and really deep hatred of russia in the american Political Class and particularly the media here, what is, what is the kremlin expecting in january when it comes to American Foreign policy towards your country . Go ahead 1st of all, i think the relationship between the United States and russia would have continued to deteriorate anyway, regardless of who would end up in the white house. And especially seeing the expectations are peter listen, our viewers the biden ministration on 2 on 2 particular issues. As long as you mentioned, mention in your introduction, the intersection is filled with people with the kind of long, long record deep criticism to put it very mildly explores russia and i know ideas on the military interventions. But most importantly, i think given that the idea of the United States is divided now politically and ideologically and socially, what unites the democratic that minutes ration under the biden. And under my rule is that they think that democracy at home and abroad is in danger. You know, its under pressure from what they call the populists inside the west and tory tarion leaders outside the west. And lattimer putin is clearly, you know, standing up on both accounts to someone, someone to tackle. So i expect itll be a lot of pressure on moscow over in a human rights actors and things like this. And the 2nd component wish makes people in and policymakers and in moscow, particularly, you know, critical or, you know, heres the most of what may be expected. Is that under a truck, it was the that the following, the world war 2. United states policy was been based upon 2 pillars, you know, predominance and litter ship and truck kind of maintained the predominance component ones into how the United States strong militarily economically. But you kind of doubled down on what is perceived as litter ship, you know, in his view, kind of not willing to, to carry the burden for, for the allies. And i think under the industry, she would see the 1st, 2 to reinforce american standing on both the leadership and predominance and russia here is again, may be viewed as a particularly a challenge. So if you give me you does in this area, you speak like a diplomat. When kate, one thing in a diplomatic words. Michael, how, how do you see it . I mean, is it by just going to revert back to the policy that obama had . And because a lot of people around biden are people who are around obama. Ok, and i think its very fair to call them hardliners and the neocons ratings. Greatest fear, thanks for having me back on. Its nice to be with you again and friends in russia and around the world. You know, im a little more hopeful in the sense that there are a couple of reasons im more hopeful. One is we actually arent talking nearly as much about russia. And as you say, russia gay, as we had, i think over 1000 has taken over a lot of the oxygen in the room. The donald trump presidency, which as you know, is very controversy over here. Whether you like him or not, it was controversy. All understand how the issue has been a little less in the front and center. Secondly, i dont think the biden team would see any great benefit to having a showdown with light in new york. I mean, people have lowered expectations, of course, of what this relationship can be, but it doesnt mean that they really see an opportunity for a 0 sum competition in americas favor. The places we are presently locking horns, which are largely in Eastern Europe and the broader middle east are areas that by and i think would like to minimize his engagement because theres no real benefits of him getting more involved in those places. And the last point ill make and other way i dont dismiss any of your concerns, im just trying to give a little bit of a, of a sort of slightly more hopeful spent. I dont know if bill burns, for example, will have a role in this administration, the former deputy secretary of state, but hes well regarded in the Democratic Party circles. And im not sure if youve had a chance to read his book yet the back channel, but its a very sophisticated view of the u. S. Russia relationship, which may be more critical of certain russian officials than, than some of your listeners may prefer. But its not devoid of sort of a broader Historical Perspective on russia and its pride as a nation, its rights as a nation and how we have to rethink the u. S. Russia relationship going forward. So someone like bill burns has influence, but im a little more hopeful as well. That will hopefully its not susan rice. Brian, let me go to you, let me read some words from the, from joe biden here on the campaign trail. This is from the spring here, we must impose real costs on russia, parents, violations of international norms. Norms, really, an stand was russian civil society, which is bravely said no time and again against president Vladimir Putins a prosperous, the authoritarian system. Thats the mindset of the next president is going to be dealing with russia. Not hopeful in my my and its a, its a bit hard to say, although i agree with you, generally speaking, i mean, think about when, when the biting obama team came into the white house in 2009, the 1st one, the 1st absolutes, do have Hillary Clinton go and when that Big Red Button robin said, lets press the reset button. And it was clear that the obama and the obama biden ministration were hopeful that there would be an improvement in u. S. Russian relations. In other words, its not an existential ideological orientation. On the part of whats changed is the political atmosphere in the United States since 2009, such that anyone who speaks up in favor of an improvement in u. S. Russian relations will be tarred as some, some kind of puppet, for putin or, or a proxy for the kremlin and so i think the language on the campaign trail may well reflect this general atmosphere, such that biden cant say anything about the improvement of relations. The real issue is why did the relationship deteriorate . Why did we go from that big red reset button to immediate sort of degeneration or devolution in the relationship . And i think theres 22 issues there. One is what happened in syria, where russia came in and made it clear that the russians would like their position on libya, where they abstained at the u. N. They were going to make a decisive intervention. This say no, were not going to allow regime change to be taken to take place against the us, a government. And then of course, the coup detat in february 2014 in ukraine, which was considered by russia. Now actually to be hyper aggressive on the part of the, of the, of the obama administration. And because russia stood up and said, no look, crimea is not created, be turned into a nato base. That was considered to be cardinal, sent. The question is for biden, and a team, do they accept the fact that russia actually has legitimate national in regional interests . And will they accept that or not . Or do they want to continue down this path of hyper aggressive demonization . Maybe perhaps because America Needs big enemies like china and russia to justify the looting of the national treasury, which is actually whats going on by the continued increase in military spending. You know, max might seem like we already heard it from brian here. I mean, when i, when i look at American Foreign policy makers in the media that there is this run for, or i dont, the top that russia has no legitimate security interest of its own. Its almost taken as a given. And i played it so bizarre because everything, every country, every nation state has interest in it will obviously pursue it. But russia, when it tries to pursue its, it is somehow some kind of rogue character on the international stage. I mean, do you find that frustrating . I do find it frustrating a limit to govern what bryce said and kind of go back to what michaels talking about. I think the what i thought, well, brian described actually under obama, the real issue was, would on a very negative trajectory end this crisis. The way you describe syria, youre crazy, are still there. And you know what michael says, c. U. Z. Is more optimistic outlook for what may come next for us. Fresh relations. Id love to side with him, but i just dont see any objective grounds for, for this optimism. Simply because i do really, of that. Russia may be a lesser of a domestic issue for the United States for now. Now that the democrats control the white house, but i think russia will return to where it has been ever since. Pretty much 2008 if not earlier as a key geo strategic adversary for the United States. And and i take people like tony blinken or Michelle Flournoy who may be, you know, all occupy positions. Somebody defense secretary National Security adviser one day when the lincoln, for instance, the biden team should revise. What he sees was the major blunder of the obama administration, which is syria policies will lead a lot of Syrian Opposition groups down. And you know, when people in moscow hear this use, the question is, what do we make of it doesnt mean that the United States is the wind back to reinforce. Its not to do anything, anything constructive, but just to know, play game up. Denial of the michael, michael, do you think that maybe by an illustration is going to take another swing at regime change in syria because were always told it because of the of the russians. Ok, i mean is this, are we just going to have a reset back to 2016 . Go ahead max and you raise an interesting question, but ive heard tony blinken talk about this as well. And my interpretation of where tonys coming from. Ive known tony for 20 some years. Hes a very humble guy, and when i heard him talk about syria, it was more to criticize the United States early east as much to criticize the United States as to criticize russia. In the sense that tony knows, this was not a stellar accomplishment of the obama administration. Anything at all that happened within syria. And you can be critical of russias policy and also be critical of americas policy. I think thats what tony blinken would put himself also. I think he knows enough to know this is just simply not worth going back to. I mean, what are we going to do . A restart, a civil war thats already been the most tragic of the 21st century. Whatever your take on why it got so bad and who is most at fault, there is no good to come from starting it over again. You know, i see no reason to think you. Would you think that by going astray schuman do the right thing, and remove troops from syria, which are there uniquely, under International Law . But im not sure thats the right thing, as long as we dont know how to vouch for the well being of the syrian kurds. So i think what theyll try to do to see if there can be some kind of that autonomy arrangement that protects those northeastern syrian kurds. And if they can get that, then i think they would be content to leave. That would be my best guess. Right, and its all about the kurds. Ok. Maybe. I mean, and if theres, theres plenty of resentment that theyve lost after this huge effort they lost in syria and they want their revenge. It seems clear to me 30 seconds. Go to you, brian. Before we go to break, i dont think there is any revenge. I think i might go on that. I think the civil war has basically ended. There was a military victory for the assad government. Its egg on the face of the United States, but its not the central issue for the United States. Syria is for American Foreign policy. Something of a side show, not of course for the syrians. So i dont think that this is going to be the dominant issue going forward. I dont think not. Well, thought about, well talk about many issues. When we come back here gentlemen, were going to go to a short break and well continue our discussion. The u. S. , russia relations stay with me. During the vietnam war, u. S. Forces also bombs in neighboring laos. There was a secret war. And for years the American People did not know how much going to focus on every back country per capita of the ball. As soon as history, millions of unexploded bombs still in danger lives in this Small Agricultural country. We dont think going to continue to happen again. Even today, kids in laos full victim to bombs dropped decades ago. Is the u. S. Making amends for that tragedy and what help to the people need in that little land on the pandemic . No, certainly no borders to nationalities has emerged with world beat. 2 commentary we can do better, we should be everyone is contributing way, but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. The challenges, grateful to response, has been so many good people are helping us. It makes us feel very proud that we are in it together. Welcome back to cross up where all things are considered. Im peter loyal to remind you, were just discussing a by Foreign Policy towards russia. When hes going back to maxine makes him what could the United States and russia work on . I mean, we have a divided opinion on this program so far. I dont think that the biden ministration is going to break with the past. You know, hating russia, hating putin, pays a modicum of dividends. Stepping out of line. Theres huge penalties here. So, but what can the u. S. And russia were going together with a union ideological photo of the United States . Those 2 entities did accomplish many things together. Go ahead, measure it, right, i think hold our skin troll. And the prolongation of the start treaty is one thing when people frequently mention when they talk about a potential for cooperation between the 2, between moscow and washington. And obviously, you know, well geithner will come to office sue weeks before the start treaty expires. So he promised an automatic proliferation of the treaty, so that may be an optimistic note. That said, however, if we kind of hunch, flip the coin and look at it differently. This will pretty much exhaust the, the constructive agenda of the u. S. , russia relations in early or early next year. So after the prohibition of the treaty, you dont really have anything substantial to talk about. Now you, you know, you may have 5 years or 3 years when youre, depending not on for a long treaty, maybe prolong for us to discuss, you know, concrete matter. Solve the treaty. Me think about, you know, other armstrongs related issues. But i would think that United States will still want to f. China in the treaty and russia will continue. Other things like the open skies treaty that now russia, you know, pressure on the europeans to provide some guarantees that you know, american aircraft are not going to fly over the russian territory. Tons of things flaws you have in the bite. In this regime, people who can very critical of russias own kind of Record Keeping with the, with this arms control deal. So there is deep, you know, divide and also distrust. And you mentioned, you know, the wrapper between this audience and americans. And you remember, and all of you remember, im sure they do reconcile and theyre going to have to trust. But verify. I think honor by the industry in the long local the slogan, dont trust an reverify as far as arms control are, are concerned. So im pretty, pretty pessimistic on that account as well. May go further than the arms control. Plus you have this initiative by trump on the modernization of American Nuclear arsenal. Militarization of space. And i think these things are there to say, even though you know, there are talks that biden the stray, she may cut the Defense Budget and spend it on Climate Change for answers are all the matters. I think its still, you know, given that theres been an attempt on carly one to stray, shes going to retreat american commitments to transit to foreigners. There might be again, a new kind of mentions for confrontation between the 2 countries. Even even though it may have been a small remote michael, its talk about what you know, what can be done. I mean, i brought up the example of the soviet union United States and they were focused for maybe what we call the cold war here. But they still worked on agreements to their mutual benefit. And historically speaking, arms control agreements, people kind of like ok, i mean if you know you people on the fringes, a dont like them. You cant, can these kind of things be done. Also, i want to reiterate counterterrorism and Climate Change. Can these things be done in isolation and this we lation ship just, you know, laser focus on those things here and not touch the rest of the toxic relationship, but i think its going to be toxic for at least another generation. How i think that is possible, as long as things dont get worse in other domains at the same time. So if we had an intensifying confrontation, somehow in the broader middle east, somewhere it would be hard to simultaneously pursue even a modest arms control agenda. But if we can sort of just more or less stabilize the competition, so to speak, not end it and not agree on everything, but just not see things deteriorate from libya to syria, to elsewhere. Maybe get some cooperation on iran. Maybe get some cooperation on a new start. Maybe china simply signs on to say theyre not going to build up their arsenal. They dont have to be a full party to the treaty, but they could make some kind of an attached statement that would bring them in some broader sense, but allow the focus to stay on the u. S. And russia. And then peter, as you know, one of my big concerns is the Security Architecture for East