From moscow news h. Q. Watching all of the international with me Daniel Hawkins thanks for joining us on the program. Russias president has condemned a controversial u. S. Missile tests noting its timing suggests the weapon was developed long before washington sought to quit on of treaty which banned such weapons but out of your putin was asked about the issue after talks with the finnish president in helsinki hes done quarter reports. The russian president touched upon a number of issues at the press conference from the i. N. F. Treaty like you said to the ongoing protests in moscow now on the ladder the western media has been accusing russia of cracking down on its opposition but lattimer putin stressed that the police have been acting within accordance to the law so im with you must be. Something unique need the for the world as a whole not for europe in particular weve witnessed similar events in many european capitals these events oh much wider also politically fueled and have quite grave consequences for the protesters now theres plenty of discussion on that front but the main point of discussion had to do with washingtons latest Cruise Missile test that took place on sunday it was conducted in violation of the i. N. F. Treaty which banned land based Cruise Missiles that had a range of over 500 kilometers now for over 30 years this impeded the possibility of a Nuclear Arms Race between russia and the United States and while this treaty we might not have it anymore putin said that the timing of this test showed that it was in development before washington even withdrew it was a jewel in the wheel disappointed with what we see this test goes against the i and if treaty and escalates the security problem in the world and europe in particular the u. S. Tested this missile to phone right of the they lift the i and if treaty we supposed to work on this missile stilted long before the search for reasons to leave the treaty while the missile was launched off the coast of california and it was the 1st u. S. Test of a Cruise Missile with a range over 500 kilometers but its really no surprise because on the very day that washington withdrew from the i. N. F. Treaty it announced the new tests now to give our viewers a bit of context the u. S. Official reason for leaving the i. N. F. Treaty had to do with them blaming russia for noncompliance now moscow denied these claims and Vladimir Putin emphasized that mosque. It will not be the 1st one to boost its military as long as washington doesnt take steps of its own to boost its military he also reiterated that russia is dedicated to defending its borders and will respond to any military threat against the country. Will live now too shall shew bridge security analyst thanks for joining us sir good to have you on today is the nodes in the u. S. Must have started work on the missile testing before quitting the n f do you think thats the case. Yes i think its undoubtedly the case and indeed it was much of the commentary that was being carried out by experts and even observers of course the moment and missile was launched and its an interesting example here that although this Missile Launch and indeed this missile deployment would have been a violation of the treaty of course the development it should be said of it would not have been but nonetheless of course theres no point in actually developing to system unless you intend to certainly test it that would have been a violation of the treaty and lets not forget the treaty only expired some 17 days before this launch took place there are threats of course going on on both sides here but do you think this these series of tests on both sides increases Global Security problems. Yes theres no doubt about it i mean one of the main problems weve got is such as she reduced the range and the should say the payload to Nuclear Payload of Weapon Systems so you blur the boundaries between perhaps conventional systems and then the use of Smaller Nuclear weapons and then because they really they deterrence situation that weve had over many many years really depends upon that boundary being very distinct and clear one because if they. Actually diminished in other words you can use perhaps small Nuclear Weapons in whats called a war fighting way rather than just to terence it encourages or could encourage commanders on the ground to actually believe they could use those weapons without a. Full scale not Nuclear Exchange taking place i think whats really interesting here as well is that youve got a situation where for many years back to the obama era that america has been making allegations that russia has been developing weapons and even deploying weapons are in violation of the i. N. F. Treaty. America hasnt produced publicly evidence of that but it has persuaded its nato allies with socalled secret intelligence that that was the case and yet here weve got a situation where again on the other side for many years russia has claimed that its russia that america has been deploying in europe these interceptor missiles that can intercept nuclear or can intercept Ballistic Missiles coming in those are. Basing for example a mania and poland of russia of course is very much objected to those largely on the grounds that those Missile Launchers can be used for launching weapons that would have been banned under the r n f treaty and indeed on this test that happened again on sunday it was interesting to see that it was exactly this kind of vertical launch a system that is used for those interceptor missiles that was used to test this Weapon System this Cruise Missile that would have been banned under that i have treaties in other words weve got clear proof here that the russian suspicions and those were raised repeatedly throughout the pre ending of the i. N. F. Years that those suspicions were actually well grounded. Geishas encounter allegations some we saw an accusing each other of breaching the on of treaty are you surprised that the pentagon conducted this test so soon after the treaty expired. No not really because from a political perspective of course its in line with the strategy or the tactics that. Donald trump and his ministration have been pursuing in other words very much full on in your face type negotiation strategies and lets not forget that this is really part of a big. Negotiation game here in respect of for example trying to bring china into this situation this america walking away from the new treaty has got much less i think to do with alleged russian violations that it has to do with the fact that china was never a part of the sign a treaty and so the United States position is that this has allowed china to develop intermediate need nuclear. Weapon systems land based systems because lets not forget sea and air based systems were never covered by this treaty anyway and that was placed to us as a disadvantage and indeed the trump has himself said that he would be very willing to have a new treaty so long as it included china and so therefore i think it was to be expected that a political message as much as anything else would be sent as soon as possible by the u. S. And hence on the very day that the treaty expired the u. S. Announced these tests and its also significant i think that the test of the system showed that on this particular Missile System the range was only just over the 500 kilometers range that would have been. Permissible under the old i know if treaty you know if youve got a clear sending of messages here because this system itself did not particularly bearing in mind it was only just over the 500 kilometers range that would have been permitted but permissible anyway it hasnt necessarily acted in a great way to enhance militarily americas capability but would it send a message of intent i think largely to china as well as to russia not america intends to deploy these weapons unless they get what they want in other words probably a treaty with china and speaking of trump a little political messages hes been unusually saw and on this hasnt he do you think were going to hear a response from trump and speaking of china do you think its likely need treaty involving beijing will be signed. I think its unlikely china has given good reasons or at least its reasons why its unlikely and that is simply because. The treat any new treaty would seek to limit. The number of a Weapon Systems within this range band but the vast majority of chinas Weapon Systems are within this band of ranges that would have been covered by the i. M. F. And presumably would be covered by any new treaty and also china of course points out that the number of Weapon Systems that it has is very small compared to the number of comparable systems that russia and america possess and therefore if there was going to be a reduction or even a banning of such systems this would have a much greater a much disproportionate effect on chinas ability to defend itself 40 to attack than it would on that of the United States thats the central problem here and it seems to be quite fundamental looking forward to ruining the chances of the kind of treaty that america or certainly trump has said that he wants to achieve and sunny i think we can look at this test as part of that and we can probably see an escalating sequence of feature tests. In an effort to increase the pressure on china as well as russia the problem is of course that its going to largely be responsible i think for an increase in the arms race because russia will feel the need as they stated to similarly produce such weapons youre certainly seems were no closer to a resolution here doesnt it charles troubridge security analyst thanks for your insight that n. R. T. International. Tortilla has revealed that a u. S. Oil and gas lobby group helped secure a ledger legislation that criminalized protests against pipelines that was in response to demonstrations against the construction of a pipeline in north dakota during which activists train themselves to equipment protesters also started fires when the your thirties tried to remove them from the site with more on the story is clearly more than. If you want to have big influence in washington d. C. And need to have a big lobby and that means you need to have big money meet the american fuel and petro Chemical Manufacturers the a. F. P. Represents all the big names in the Energy MarketsKoch Industries chevron exxon mobil Valero Energy to name a few now the f. P. M. Has been around since 1902 making sure that the voice of the ultra wealthy oil monopolists are not left out of the political process and it seems like their latest target has been protesters now the a. F. P. Has crafted legislation in 22. 00 different states already passed in 9 states that would severely restrict the activities of political activists who might get in the way of Oil Pipelines and other profitable infrastructure in an audio recording obtained by the intercept the groups Senior Vice President discusses the strategy that theyre using to criminalize protests. Now the language of the riot boosting act is a little bit vague it could be a stretch to outlaw even thinking about protesting big Oil Companies. Now this is the only law thats been pushed by the a. F. P. I am 28 teen age 30000000 dollar lobbying effort killed a carbon tax in Washington State bigger cars means more gasoline and more gasoline means more profits for the Oil Companies the money and influence of big oil certainly outweigh the effort. Grassroots environmentalist Everybody Knows that in the United States of america if you want something you have got to pay for it and the oil industry certainly has all the means necessary. But artsy new york. Washington sanctions on buying arabian oil more than 2 and a half 1000000 barrels from the Global Market every day thats the estimate given by the u. S. Secretary of state. The white house special representative for iran has apparently tried to downplay the sanctions impact suggesting that most of the economic woes of these public all its own making. Iran is in a recession. Inflation is creeping up near 50 percent. This is largely caused by irans corruption. Irans marxist economy the traps people in poverty and a government that prioritizes ideology over the welfare of its own people but it is also the case that our sanctions have driven up the cost on the regime. In theory the sanctions dont target medicine in practice though due to a sweeping ban on Financial Transactions with a rainy ends they can buy medical supplies from abroad with a dramatic fall in imports they increasingly face key shortages last year the International Court of justice ordered the u. S. To remove any impediments to the export of humanitarian goods including medicine to iran the trouble ministration though insists medicine is not being targeted. With number one the United States sanctions medical supplies going to the iranian people the truth is that the United States exams by the medical devices for the iranian people the iranian people know all too well that the real issue preventing access is the regime itself doesnt crash and my husband is a cancer patient and we are worried about his medication and their costs medications used to be available before but after the sanctions they have become more expensive andrea and we are worried about the future and what will happen. And i lived all this is the 2nd round of my chemotherapy off to sanctions before my chemotherapy used to cost 211. 00 euros but now with each round i need to pay 422 year old drugs cannot be found easily like before we have to search them in different pharmacies with every single one of them not having a specific kind of drug. No when they impose sanctions on our banks the money cannot be transferred easily to a foreign country in order to buy medication. Little to bring in many devices and some of them like components its obvious that without these parts the devices simply wont work. University of tehran professor said Mohammed Morandi believes washington just doesnt want to shoulder the responsibility for its impact of the sanctions. While the United States under trump is trying to be brutal he is trying to brutalize ordinary iranians and kill as many iranians as possible they want to have their cake and eat it too on the one hand they want to say that you run we are powerful and were destroying the iranian economy and on the other hand they want to say well the iran is evil and incompetent and its their own fault but the truth of the matter is that they have caused great difficulty in iran this sanctions regime or this maximum Pressure Campaign is directly targeting ordinary iranians you cannot import medicine through the Banking System in iran you cannot import anything through the international Banking System and this of course is a violation of human rights. The u. K. s public broadcaster the b. B. C. s making headlines of its own thats softer to admitted to failings in its products and coverage during the recent european elections the spy and its own strict editorial guidelines but suskind taylor explains it took a lot for the corporation to acknowledge its or. The b. B. C. Has just admitted that one of its graphics illustrating the results of the european parliamentary election back in may this year it was misleading now the chart in question shows how well pro and anti bracks at parties did and it suggests that remain as one a little over 40 percent of the vote with bracks it is coming in just shy of 35 percent the conclusion of course being that anti bracks sentiment and europe whats stronger but and this is where the issue is the croft they all still count for one important thing while the new form bracks the party and you kip are represented as backing bracks it the conservatives are not despite being a party that was then and still is committed to at leaving the european bloc a huge void coconspirator has pursued de she for months and despite being rebuffed twice by the b. B. C. Yesterday finally had his complaint accepted it was except a doctor threatening to take them out to calm the 2. Its used by the b. B. C. To present the Election Results attempted to do a brutally imply and to brag suit parties receive the most routes now conservative support of brechts it is by no means whole hearted but publicly its now pursuing a united pro brecks it policy to reason may of course was adamant on this everyone now knows how famous mantra that means brett said and this is only hardened and Boris Johnson has vowed to take the u. K. Out of the e. U. By the october deal or no deal so this was a significant omission on the part of the b. B. C. Indeed if that had correctly included the conservative party the progress it is would have taken the lead in that graphic by 3 percent potentially changing the implications of that election another aspect of the story worth mentioning is that the b. B. C. Actually rebuffed the complaint for almost one month while we understand your concerns given the preceding paragraph we dont believe readers would have been misled on what the graph was showing now as i said the b. B. C. Has since admitted that these graphics were a lapse in editorial standards theyve been removed on a note of correction a