Subcribtions__
00:00
01:02
Dear Keir, you have said that there is a weight of evidence of cyberattacks by Russia.
01:12
And then you went on to list those official US agencies that have stated as much.
01:21
Is that so?
01:23
Well, I'm giving you information about who said it so you can answer.
01:29
Right. You are conveying information to me as to who said that.
01:34
But where is evidence that this was indeed done?
01:38
I will tell you that this person has said that, that person has said this. But where is the evidence?
01:45
When there are charges without evidence,
01:48
I can tell you that you can take your complaint to the International League of Sexual Reform (SIC).
01:53
This is a conversation that has no subject.
01:58
Put something on the table so that we can look and respond. But there isn't anything like that.
02:06
One of the latest attacks, as far as I know, was against the pipeline system in the US.
02:15
Right, yes. So what?
02:19
But this is… but you mention…
02:23
Just a moment. As far as I know, the shareholders of this company even made a decision to pay the ransom.
02:32
They paid off the cyber gangsters.
02:35
If you have listed an entire set of US special services (powerful, global, respectable), after all they can find whoever the ransom was paid.
02:47
And once they do that, they will realise that Russia has nothing to do with it.
02:51
Then there's the cyberattack against a meat processing plant.
02:59
Next time they will say there was an attack against some Easter eggs.
03:04
It's becoming farcical, like an ongoing farcical thing, never-ending farcical thing.
03:10
You said ”plenty of evidence,“ but you haven't cited any proof.
03:15
But again, this is an empty conversation, a pointless conversation.
03:20
What exactly are we talking about? There's no proof.
03:23
You've moved on to this question of ransomware and criminals.
03:30
Russian-speaking criminals is the allegation, are targeting the American way of life: food, gas, water, hospitals, transport.
03:43
Why would you let Russian-speaking criminals disrupt your diplomacy?
03:50
Wouldn't you want to know who's responsible?
03:53
You know, the simplest thing to do would be for us to sit down calmly and agree on joint work in cyberspace.
04:04
We did suggest that to Obama’s administration…
04:07
- In September. - In October.
04:11
We started in September, and during his last year in office. In October at first they didn't say anything.
04:18
Then in November, they came back to us and said that, yes, it was interesting.
04:21
Then the election was lost.
04:23
We restated this proposal to Mr Trump's administration.
04:27
The response was that it is interesting, but it didn't come to the point of actual negotiations.
04:34
There are grounds to believe that we can build an effort in this area with the new administration,
04:41
that the domestic political situation in the US will not prevent this from happening.
04:46
But we have proposed to do this work together. Let's agree on the principles of mutual work.
04:54
Let's agree on how we will structure counter-efforts against the process that is gathering momentum.
05:02
We here in the Russia have cybercrimes that have increased many times over in the last few years.
05:09
Within the country!
05:10
We are trying to respond to it. We are looking for cyber criminals. If we find them, we punish them.
05:17
We are willing to engage with international participants, including the United States.
05:22
You are the ones who have refused to engage in joint work. What can we do?
05:28
We cannot build this work, we cannot structure this work unilaterally.
05:34
Keir Simmons: Well, I'm not the government, Mr Putin. I'm just a journalist asking you questions.
05:40
I understand that.
05:41
But if you clearly want to negotiate, you must have something to negotiate with. You don't ask for a truce unless you're fighting in a war.
05:54
You know, as far as the war, NATO, and I'd like to draw your attention to that,
06:03
has officially stated that it considers cyberspace a battlefield, an area of military action, and it conducts exercises in that battlefield.
06:14
- And you are involved in that field. - No.
06:20
- Russia is fighting on that battlefield. Correct? - No, no, that is not correct.
06:26
- Really? - Really!
06:30
That is not current. Really. If we wanted to do that…
06:33
NATO said that it considers cyberspace an area of combat.
06:38
And it prepares and even conducts exercises. What stops us from doing that?
06:42
If you do that, we will do the same thing. But we don't want that, just like we don't want space militarised,
06:49
in the same manner we don't want cyberspace militarised.
06:52
And we have suggested on many occasions, agreeing on mutual work in the cybersecurity area in this area.
06:59
But your government refuses to.
07:02
It isn’t, I mean. I saw your proposal from September, from just in September. Isn’t what you're proposing?
07:10
That if you can come to an agreement over hacking and election interference,
07:18
then you'll call off the hacking and the election interference if America agrees not to comment on your elections and your political opponents?
07:31
What we count on is that nobody should interfere in domestic internal affairs of other countries,
07:38
neither the US in ours nor we in the USA's political processes or any other nations.
07:42
All nations of the world should be given an opportunity to develop calmly.
07:47
Even if there are crisis situations they have to be resolved by the people domestically, without any influence or interference from the outside.
07:53
I don't think that this call by the US administration, today's administration is worth anything.
08:00
It appears to me that the US government will still continue to interfere in the political processes in other countries.
08:07
I don't think that this process can be stopped, because it has gained a lot of momentum.
08:12
However, as far as joint work in cyberspace for the prevention of some unacceptable actions on the part of cyber criminals,
08:29
that is definitely something that can be agreed upon.
08:31
And it is our great hope that we will be able to establish this process with our US partners.
08:37
If you were in America, what would you fear might happen next?
08:44
The lights being switched off the way they were in western Ukraine in 2015?
08:52
You mean if I were in America, what I would be afraid of? Is that the question?
09:02
What should Americans worry about? What might happen next if there's no agreement on cyber?
09:16
You know, this is just like space militarisation. This is a very dangerous area.
09:21
At some point, in order to achieve something in the nuclear area in terms of confrontation in the area of nuclear weapons,
09:31
the USSR and the United States did agree to contain this particular arms race.
09:38
But cyberspace is a very sensitive area.
09:42
As of today, a great deal of human endeavours rely upon digital technologies, including the functioning of government.
09:52
And of course interference in those processes can cause a lot of damage and a lot of losses.
09:57
And everybody understands that.
10:01
And I am repeating for the third time: Let's sit down together and agree on joint work on how to achieve security in this area.
10:07
That is all. What's bad about it? I don't even understand.
10:12
I'm not asking you. I'm not trying to put you on the spot.
10:17
But for me as an ordinary citizen, it would not be clear and understandable, why is it that your government refuses to do it?
10:26
Accusations keep coming, including up to interference, involvement in a cyberattack against some kind of a meat processing plant.
10:33
But our proposal to start negotiations in this area are being turned down.
10:40
This is some kind of nonsense, but that's exactly what's been happening.
10:45
I repeat one more time. It is my hope that we will be able to start engaging in positive work in this area.
10:52
In terms of what's to be afraid of, why is it that we suggest agreeing on something?
10:58
Because what people can be afraid of in America, are worried about in America, the very same thing can be a danger to us.
11:05
The US is a high-tech country. NATO has declared cyberspace an area of combat.
11:12
That means they are planning something. They are preparing something.
11:20
So obviously this cannot but worry us.
11:23
Do you fear that American intelligence is deep inside Russian systems and has the ability to do you a lot of damage in cyber?
11:35
I'm not afraid, but I bear in mind that it is a possibility.
__**************************__
EVIDENCE[ˈev.ə.dəns] chứng cớ
PROOF: BẰNG CHỨNG
CYBERATTACKS[cyberattacks] tấn công mạng
CYBERSPACE: không gian mạng
CONVEYING[kənˈveɪɪŋ] chuyển tải
as far as: theo như
PIPELINE: đường ống
RANSOM[ˈræn.səm] tiền chuộc
FARCICAL[ˈfɑː.sɪ.kəl] kỳ quái
CITED: trích dẫn
POINTLESS[ˈpɔɪnt.ləs] vô nghĩa
ALLEGATION[ˌæl.əˈɡeɪ.ʃən] sự cáo buộc
DISRUPT[dɪsˈrʌpt] làm gián đoạn
DIPLOMACY[dɪˈploʊ.mə.si] ngoại giao
JOINT WORK: cộng tác, hợp tác
PROPOSAL[prəˈpoʊ.zəl] đề nghị
administration: bộ máy
NEGOTIATIONS[nəˌgoʊʃiˈeɪʃənz] đàm phán
GROUNDS[graʊndz] căn cứ
MUTUAL[ˈmjuː.tʃu.əl] chung / lẫn nhau
PRINCIPLES[ˈprɪnsəpəlz] Nguyên tắc
CYBER CRIMES [cybercrimes] tin tặc / tội phạm điện tử
UNILATERALLY[ˌjuː.nəˈlæt̬.ɚ.əl.i] đơn phương
TRUCE[truːs] đình chiến
STATED[ˈsteɪtəd] đã nêu
BATTLEFIELD[ˈbæt̬.əl.fiːld] chiến trường
MILITARISED[militarised] quân sự hóa
AFFAIRS[əˈfɛrz] sự việc
CRISIS[ˈkraɪ.sɪs] cuộc khủng hoảng
confrontation[ˌkɑːn.frənˈteɪ.ʃən] đối đầu
SENSITIVE[ˈsen.sə.t̬ɪv] nhạy cảm
ENDEAVOURS[endeavours] nỗ lực
FUNCTIONING[ˈfʌŋkʃənɪŋ] hoạt động
0 Komentar