into the parliamentary theatrics of prime minister s questions, which is a very, very different time and setting it to the one he was faced with today. doing the greatest hits, coming out swinging, just looked tonally so out of step i think today. tonally so out of step i think toda . , today. but isn t the point the prime minister does today. but isn t the point the prime minister does the today. but isn t the point the prime minister does the greatest - today. but isn t the point the prime minister does the greatest hits - today. but isn t the point the primei minister does the greatest hits very well, he is a highly effective politician who does not behave like a lot of other politicians which may be why he was mayor of london and now prime minister? he does things in an unorthodox fashion. absolutely, and this is the benefit of the doubt i would give him, if his advisers and his personal aim today was to come out with no further big hard front page headlines and to flap bac
this weekend. what do you see him doing in response to the presidents of these troops on the borders? he says everybody has to get out of his back yard. you can see, he s well-positioned unfortunately. he s going to do one of two things. i don t think it s out of the possibility that he will use the fact that the u.s. turned down his security guarantees, whether we could or should isn t the point. gives him the pretext with the russian people the say look, they don t give us this because they intend for nato to be an aircraft carrier on the russian border and we need to go in or he s going to get concessions. jennifer griffin just reported that the u.s. is making offers to try to appease him. so one way or another, my fear is that vladimir putin is going to be rewarded for his very bad behavior and it s really because of strategic decisions, mistakes by this administration once again on foreign policy issues.
started lifting security checks on those coming from a war zone, first of all it would be the wrong thing to do. we ve got to look at for our security. i we ve seen public support, very moving, overwhelming, i think he was start to see that free. in the same way, let s be honest, if we were to engage in a military, direct conflict with vladimir putin. i think the consensus about what we re doing would also free. just be clear about this, you ve got to think these things through. we ve got to be measured as well as resolute. all right, that isn t the point here that what seems to happen is not so much that you are reacting to events, but you re being dragged to events. and that actually what you re really doing is following it rather than leading. on sanctions, on refugees. you ve issued stern press releases then changed your position. though is what we re seeing here a government which doesn t want to take the political risks that are actually involved in
i think people will steal their nerve, and we will support them all the way. all right, let s talk to about some more difficult questions. presidents lewinsky has called for more flies on to be established by nato. nato, and in particularly our government, you have reached on it by saying that such a step would be provoking year of white conflict. surely, the humanitarian crisis playing out before eyes is going to change the calculus over that? i think the humanitarian situation is something to constantly innovate and evolve our response to. and ultimately we will try to prevent. but it is the nato allies, the u.s. allies have been the same that we are not going to be able to get into a direct military conflict with putin. because also, it feeds putin s narrative. he wants to say that he is
but he s right in the sense that this is a bit different than most things we have dealt with in the past. take climate change for example, we re all concerned about it now. who would have predicted something like the paris agreement, people coming together pretty much countries from around the world. there s still a lot of work ahead, but you can see the right conversations beginning to happen and you feel the urgency, and so i also see evidence that humanity rises to the occasion. right? so, i think it will play out a similar way. isn t ai and climate change fundamentally different in this sense? if someone dumps dumps some carbon in the sky, it s bad for you and it s bad for me, so we should make a deal to get that carbon out of the sky. isn t the point about al that the different needs of different societies in different nations will use ai for different ends, and so because of that, artificial intelligence isn t a sphere of cooperation, it s a sphere of competition.