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 think the expectations are peter, listen, our viewers divided ministration on 2 on 2 particular issues. As long as you mentioned, mention in your introduction, the ministration is filled with people with, with all kind of long, long record deep criticism to put it very mildly explores russia and then you know, ideas on the military interventions. But most importantly, i think, given the duty of the United States is divided now politically in ideologically and socially. What unites the Democratic Administration under the biden. And under the 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 also, or its very leaders outside the west. And latin, or putin is clearly, you know, sending up both the someone, someone to tackle. So i expect itll be a lot of pressure on moscow over into 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 administration, you 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. What kate . One thing, any 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 been, i think over 19 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 of donors, they know the issue has been a little less in the front and center. Secondly, i dont think the biden team with see any great benefit to having a showed around with vladimir putin. 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 either 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 you 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. It 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 posse authoritarian system. Thats the mindset of the next president is going to be dealing with russia. Not hopeful in my mind. So its a bit hard to say, oh, i agree with you. Generally speaking, i mean, think about when obama team came into the white house in 2009. The 1st one of the 1st acts was do clinton go in . Then 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, take place against the us, a government. And then of course, the coup detat in february 2014 in ukraine, which was considered by russia not 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, primedia is not created, be turned into a nato base. That was considered to be a cardinal sent. The question is for biden, and the team, do they accept the fact that russia actually has legitimate national and 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 we already heard it from brian here. I mean, when i, when i look at American Foreign policy makers in the media, there is this run from, 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 that you described syria, crazy are still there. And you know what michael says, he 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 just 1008, if not earlier, as a key geo strategic adversary for the United States. And can 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, for instance, the biden team should revise what he sees was the major blunder of the obama admin to which a serial 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 the United States is the went back to reinforce, its not to do anything, anything constructive, but just to know, play game up, denial of national interest, the michael, michael, do you think that maybe the biden ministration 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 to 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 tony is 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 where 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 . 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 is see if there can be some kind of an 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. Theyre fine. But i mean it, theres, theres plenty of meant that they 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, you gentlemen, were going to go to, a short break. Nothing. Thats a break. Well continue our discussion, the u. S. , russia relations stated there was a pandemic. No, certainly no borders and a slide into nationalities doesnt work. We dont have a review. We dont look like the whole world needs to be judged as coming crisis. We dont want to we can do better, we should know better. Everyone is contributing to each her own way. But we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. The challenges created with the response has been so many good people are helping us. It makes us feel very proud that we are in it together. During the vietnam war, u. S. Forces neighboring laos. There was a secret war. And for years, the American People did not know how much it is officially country per capita, human history, millions of unexploded bombs still in danger. Lives in this Small Agricultural country. Jordyn wieber. Even today, kids in laos full victim to the bombs dropped decades ago. Is the us making amends for the tragedy and help to the people need in that little guy looking forward to this is what happens to pensions in britain. You watch kaiser report. Welcome to cross now where all things are considered im peter lol. 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 any potential for cooperation between the 2, between moscow and washington. And obviously, you know, loci will come to office sue weeks before the start treaty expires. So he promised an automatic out 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 the early or early next year. So after the proliferation 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 dependent, not on one for a long. The treaty may be prolonged for us to discuss, you know, concrete matter. Some of the treaty, me think about, you know, other arms, arms related issues, but i would think that the 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. Plus, you have in the byte, 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, that record 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 cost 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 this regime and 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 in 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 here can, can these kind of things be done . Also, i want to reiterate, counterterrorism and Climate Change can be things be done in isolation and this we nation 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 go ahead, michael, 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 Eastern Europe. And here i think what the best concept that i can come up with is to get some of the wise men and women on both sides, like on our side, sam, non military, people who have a thoughtful perspective on russia who understand a little bit of russias history, its view of itse