20210616：拜登記者會

【縛雞之見】

Having read the remark of President Biden that he made after the summit between the heads of the U.S. and Russia, I kind of believe that Biden will be a great President.  He is both an idealist and a realist.  He persuades Putin not only by introducing the ideal but also by explaining the interest.  Let’s see if I am right.

 

Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference

20210616

THE PRESIDENT:  It’s been a long day for you all.  (Laughs.)  I know it was easy getting into the — the pre-meeting.  There was no problem getting through those doors, was it — was there? 對你們所有人來說，這是漫長的一天。 （笑）我知道進入會前會議很容易。穿過那些門沒有問題，是嗎——在那裡？
Anyway, hello, everyone.  Well, I’ve just finished the — the last meeting of this week’s long trip, the U.S.-Russian Summit.大家好。我剛剛結束了——本周長途旅行的最後一次會議，美俄峰會。
And I know there were a lot of hype around this meeting, but it’s pretty straightforward to me — the meeting.  One, there is no substitute, as those of you who have covered me for a while know, for a face-to-face dialogue between leaders.  None.  And President Putin and I had a — share a unique responsibility to manage the relationship between two powerful and proud countries — a relationship that has to be stable and predictable.  And it should be able to — we should be able to cooperate where it’s in our mutual interests. 我知道這次會議有很多炒作，但對我來說很簡單——就是會議。第一，沒有什麼事可以替代領導人面對面的對話，正如你們這些已經報導過我一段時間的人所知道的那樣。普丁總統和我肩負著管理兩個強大而自豪的國家之間關係的獨特責任——一種必須穩定和可預測的關係。它應該能夠——我們應該能夠在符合我們共同利益的地方進行合作。
And where we have differences, I wanted President Putin to understand why I say what I say and why I do what I do, and how we’ll respond to specific kinds of actions that harm America’s interests. 在我們存在分歧的地方，我希望普丁總統理解我為什麼要說我所說的，為什麼我會做我所做的，以及我們將如何應對損害美國利益的特定類型的行動。
Now, I told President Putin my agenda is not against Russia or anyone else; it’s for the American people: fighting COVID-19; rebuilding our economy; reestablishing our relationships around the world with our allies and friends; and protecting our people.  That’s my responsibility as President. 我告訴普丁總統，我的議程不是針對俄羅斯或其他任何人；這是為了美國人民：與 COVID-19 作鬥爭；重建我們的經濟；與我們的盟友和朋友重建我們在世界各地的關係；並保護我們的人民。這是我作為總統的責任。
I also told him that no President of the United States could keep faith with the American people if they did not speak out to defend our democratic values, to stand up for the universal rights and fundamental freedoms that all men and women have, in our view.  That’s just part of the DNA of our country. 我還告訴他，如果美國人民不站出來捍衛我們的民主價值觀，捍衛我們認為所有男人和女人擁有的普遍權利和基本自由，那麼任何美國總統都不會對他們保持信任。這只是我們國家DNA的一部分。
So, human rights is going to always be on the table, I told him.  It’s not about just going after Russia when they violate human rights; it’s about who we are.  How could I be the President of the United States of America and not speak out against the violation of human rights? 所以，人權將永遠擺在桌面上，我告訴他。這不僅僅是在俄羅斯侵犯人權時追捕他們；這是關於我們是誰。作為美利堅合眾國總統，我怎能不公開反對侵犯人權的行為？
I told him that, unlike other countries, including Russia, we’re uniquely a product of an idea.  You’ve heard me say this before, again and again, but I’m going to keep saying it.  What’s that idea?  We don’t derive our rights from the government; we possess them because we’re born — period.  And we yield them to a government. 我告訴他，與包括俄羅斯在內的其他國家不同，我們是一個獨特的想法的產物。你以前一次又一次地聽我說過這句話，但我會一直說下去。那是什麼想法？我們的權利不是從政府那裡獲得的；我們擁有它們是因為我們出生——時期。我們將它們交給政府。
And so, at the forum, I pointed out to him that that’s why we’re going raise our concerns about cases like Aleksey Navalny.  I made it clear to President Putin that we’ll continue to raise issues of fundamental human rights because that’s what we are, that’s who we are.  The idea is: “We hold these truths self-evident that all men and women…”  We haven’t lived up to it completely, but we’ve always widened the arc of commitment and included more and more people. 所以，在會議上我向他指出，這就是為什麼我們要對像 Aleksey Navalny（普丁的反對者被下毒與被捕） 這樣的案件提出我們的擔憂。我向普丁總統明確表示，我們將繼續提出基本人權問題，因為這就是我們，這就是我們。這個想法是：「我們認為這些真理是不言而喻的，所有男人和女人……」我們還沒有完全做到這一點，但我們總是擴大承諾範圍，括及越來越多的人。
And I raised the case of two wrongfully imprisoned American citizens: Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed. 我提出了兩個被錯誤監禁的美國公民的案例：Paul Whelan和Trevor Reed。

I also raised the ability of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to operate, and the importance of a free press and freedom of speech. 我也提出自由歐洲電台的運作能力，以及新聞自由和言論自由的重要性。
I made it clear that we will not tolerate attempts to violate our democratic sovereignty or destabilize our democratic elections, and we would respond. 我明確表示，我們不會容忍侵犯我們民主主權或破壞我們民主選舉穩定的企圖，我們會做出回應。
The bottom line is, I told President Putin that we need to have some basic rules of the road that we can all abide by.  最重要的是，我告訴普丁總統，我們需要制訂一些我們都可以遵守的基本規則。
I also said there are areas where there’s a mutual interest for us to cooperate, for our people — Russian and American people — but also for the benefit of the world and the security of the world.  One of those areas is strategic stability. 我還說，在某些領域，我們合作有共同利益，為了我們的人民——俄羅斯和美國人民——也為了世界的利益和世界的安全。其中之一是戰略穩定性。
You asked me many times what was I going to discuss with Putin.  Before I came, I told you I only negotiate with the individual.  And now I can tell you what I was intending to do all along, and that is to discuss and raise the issue of strategic stability and try to set up a mechanism whereby we dealt with it. 你多次問我要和普丁討論什麼。在我來之前，我告訴過你我只和個人談判。現在我可以告訴大家我一直以來的意圖，就是討論和提出戰略穩定問題，並嘗試建立一個我們處理這個問題的機制。

We discussed in detail the next steps our countries need to take on arms control measures — the steps we need to take to reduce the risk of unintended conflict.
And I’m pleased that he agreed today to launch a bilateral strategic stability dialogue — diplomatic speak for saying, get our military experts and our — our diplomats together to work on a mechanism that can lead to control of new and dangerous and sophisticated weapons that are coming on the scene now that reduce the times of response, that raise the prospects of accidental war.  And we went into some detail of what those weapons systems were. 我們詳細討論了我們國家在軍備控制措施方面需要採取的下一步措施——我們需要採取哪些措施來減少意外衝突的風險。

我很高興他今天同意啟動雙邊戰略穩定對話——外交代言人，讓我們的軍事專家和我們的外交官一起努力建立一個機制，可以導致控制新的、危險的和復雜的武器現在出現在現場，減少了響應時間，增加了意外戰爭的可能性。我們詳細介紹了這些武器系統是什麼。

Another area we spent a great deal of time on was cyber and cybersecurity.  I talked about the proposition that certain critical infrastructure should be off limits to attack — period — by cyber or any other means.  I gave them a list, if I’m not mistaken — I don’t have it in front of me — 16 specific entities; 16 defined as critical infrastructure under U.S. policy, from the energy sector to our water systems. 我們花費大量時間研究的另一個領域是網路和網路安全。我談到了某些關鍵基礎設施應該禁止通過網路或任何其他方式進行攻擊的提議。我給了他們一個清單，如果我沒記錯的話——我面前沒有——16 個具體的項目； 16 個定義為美國政策下的關鍵基礎設施，從能源部門到我們的水系統。

Of course, the principle is one thing.  It has to be backed up by practice.  Responsible countries need to take action against criminals who conduct ransomware activities on their territory. 當然，原理是一回事。它必須得到實踐的支持。負責任的國家需要對在其領土上進行勒索軟體活動的犯罪分子採取行動。

So we agreed to task experts in both our — both our countries to work on specific understandings about what’s off limits and to follow up on specific cases that originate in other countries — either of our countries. 因此，我們同意指派我們雙方的專家——我們兩國的專家就什麼是禁區進行具體了解，並源自其他國家——我們兩國的具體案例。
There is a long list of other issues we spent time on, from the urgent need to preserve and reopen the humanitarian corridors in Syria so that we can get food — just simple food and basic necessities to people who are starving to death; how to build it and how it is in the interest of both Russia and the United States to ensure that Iran — Iran — does not acquire nuclear weapons.  We agreed to work together there because it’s as much interest — Russia’s interest as ours.  And to how we can ensure the Arctic remains a region of cooperation rather than conflict. 我們還花了很多時間在其他問題上，從迫切需要保護和重新開放敘利亞的人道主義走廊，以便我們能夠獲得食物——對於餓死的人來說，只是簡單的食物和基本必需品；如何建造它以及它如何符合俄羅斯和美國的利益，以確保伊朗——伊朗——不會獲得核武器。我們同意在伊朗議題上合作，因為這與我們的利益一樣多——俄羅斯的利益和我們的利益一樣。以及我們如何確保北極仍然是一個合作區域而不是衝突區域。
I caught part of President’s — Putin’s press conference, and he talked about the need for us to be able to have some kind of modus operandi where we dealt with making sure the Arctic was, in fact, a free zone. 我聽到了普丁記者會的一部份，他談到我們需要能夠有某種可行的方式來處理我們確保北極實際上是一個自由區的問題。

And to how we can each contribute to the shared effort of preventing a resurgence of terrorism in Afghanistan.  It’s very much in — in the interest of Russia not to have a resurgence of terrorism in Afghanistan. 以及我們每個人如何為防止阿富汗恐怖主義捲土重來的共同努力做出貢獻。這非常符合俄羅斯的利益，不要讓恐怖主義在阿富汗捲土重來。

There are also areas that are more challenging.  I communicated the United States’ unwavering commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. 還有一些更具挑戰性的領域。我傳達了美國對烏克蘭主權和領土完整的堅定承諾。

We agreed to pursue diplomacy related to the Minsk Agreement.  And I shared our concerns about Belarus.  He didn’t disagree with what happened; he just has a different perspective of what to do about it. 我們同意開展與《明斯克協議》相關的外交。我分享了我們對白俄羅斯的擔憂。他並不反對發生的事情。他只是對如何處理它有不同的看法。
But I know you have a lot of questions, so let me close with this: It was important to meet in person so there can be no mistake about or misrepresentations about what I wanted to communicate. 但我知道你有很多問題，所以讓我結束這一點：親自見面很重要，這樣我想交流的內容就不會出現錯誤或誤傳。

I did what I came to do: Number one, identify areas of practical work our two countries can do to advance our mutual interests and also benefit the world. 我做了我想做的事情：第一，確定我們兩國可以做哪些實際工作，以促進我們的共同利益並造福世界。
Two, communicate directly — directly — that the United States will respond to actions that impair our vital interests or those of our allies. 第二，直接傳達美國將對損害我們或我們盟友的切身利益的行動做出反應。

And three, to clearly lay out our country’s priorities and our values so he heard it straight from me. 第三，清楚地列出我們國家的優先事項和我們的價值觀。他直接從我這裡聽到了。

And I must tell you, the tone of the entire meetings — I guess it was a total of four hours — was — was good, positive.  There wasn’t any — any strident action taken.  Where we disagreed — I disagreed, stated where it was.  Where he disagreed, he stated.  But it was not done in a hyperbolic atmosphere.  That is too much of what’s been going on. 我必須告訴你，整個會議的基調——我猜總共有四個小時——是——很好，積極。沒有任何 - 採取任何尖銳的行動。我們不同意的地方——我不同意，說明它在哪裡。在他不同意的地方，他說。但這並不是在誇張的氣氛中完成的。發生的事情太多了。

Over this last week, I believe — I hope — the United States has shown the world that we are back, standing with our Allies.  We rallied our fellow democracies to make concert — concerted commitments to take on the biggest challenges our world faces. 在過去的一周裡，我相信——我希望——美國已經向世界展示了我們回來了，與我們的盟友站在一起。我們團結了我們的民主國家，齊心協力——共同承諾應對我們世界面臨的最大挑戰。

And now we’ve established a clear basis on how we intend to deal with Russia and the U.S.-Russia relationship. 現在我們已經就我們打算如何處理俄羅斯和美俄關係建立了明確的基礎。

There’s more work ahead.  I’m not suggesting that any of this is done, but we’ve gotten a lot of business done on this trip. 還有更多工作要做。我並不是說這些都完成了，但我們在這次旅行中完成了很多業務。
And before I take your questions, I want to say one last thing.  Folks, look, this is about — this about how we move from here.  This is — I listened to, again, a significant portion of what President Putin’s press conference was, and as he pointed out, this is about practical, straightforward, no-nonsense decisions that we have to make or not make. 在我回答你的問題之前，我想說最後一件事。各位，這是關於——關於我們如何從這裡開始往前走。這是——我再次聽取了普丁總統記者會的重要內容，正如他所指出的，這是關於我們必須做出或不做出的實際、直接、嚴肅的決定。

 

We’ll find out within the next six months to a year whether or not we actually have a strategic dialogue that matters.  We’ll find out whether we work to deal with everything from release of people in Russian prisons or not.  We’ll find out whether we have a cybersecurity arrangement that begins to bring some order. 我們將在接下來的六個月到一年內發現我們是否真的進行了重要的戰略對話。我們將了解我們是否努力處理從釋放俄羅斯監獄中的人開始的所有事情。我們會發現我們是否有一個開始帶來一些秩序的網路安全安排。

Because, look, the countries that most are likely to be damaged — failure to do that — are the major countries.  For example, when I talked about the pipeline that cyber hit for $5 million — that ransomware hit in the United States, I looked at him and I said, “Well, how would you feel if ransomware took on the pipelines from your oil fields?”  He said it would matter. 因為，看，最有可能受到損害的國家——未能這樣做——是主要國家。例如，當我談到網路攻擊 500 萬美元的管道——勒索軟體在美國受到攻擊時，我看著他說：「好吧，如果勒索軟體從你的油田接管管道，你會有什麼感覺？」他說這很重要。

This is not about just our self-interest; it’s about a mutual self-interest. 這不僅僅關乎我們的自身利益；這是關於共同的自身利益。
I’ll take your questions.  And as usual, folks, they gave me a list of the people I’m going to call on. 我會回答你的問題。像往常一樣，伙計們，他們給了我一份我要拜訪的人的名單。

So, Jonathan, Associated Press.

Q  Thank you, sir.  U.S. intelligence has said that Russia tried to interfere in the last two presidential elections, and that Russia groups are behind hacks like SolarWinds and some of the ransomware attacks you just mentioned.  Putin, in his news conference just now, accepted no responsibility for any misbehavior.  Your predecessor opted not to demand that Putin stop these disruptions.  So what is something concrete, sir, that you achieved today to prevent that from happening again?  And what were the consequences you threatened?
THE PRESIDENT:  Whether I stopped it from happening again — he knows I will take action, like we did when — this last time out.  What happened was: We, in fact, made it clear that we were not going to continue to allow this to go on.  The end result was we ended up withdrawing — they went withdrawing ambassadors, and we closed down some of their facilities in the United States, et cetera.  And he knows there are consequences. 我是否阻止它再次發生—他知道我會採取行動，就像我們上次那樣—這一次。事情是：事實上，我們明確表示我們不會繼續允許這種情況繼續下去。最終的結果是我們最終撤回了——他們撤回了大使，我們關閉了他們在美國的一些設施等等。他知道會有後果。
Now, look, one of the consequences that I know — I don’t know; I shouldn’t say this; it’s unfair of me — I suspect you may all think doesn’t matter, but I’m confidence it matters to him — confident it matter to him and other world leaders of big nations: his credibility worldwide shrinks. 現在，我知道的後果之一—我不知道；我不應該這樣說；這對我不公平——我懷疑你們可能都認為這無關緊要，但我相信這對他很重要—我相信這對他和其他大國的世界領導人很重要：他在全球的可信度正在下降。
Let’s get this straight: How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries, and everybody knew it?  What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he is engaged in?  It diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains its standing as a major world power. 直說吧：如果美國被世界其他國家視為直接干涉別國選舉，而所有人都知道，那會怎樣？如果我們從事他從事的活動會怎樣？它削弱了一個拼命努力確保其作為世界主要大國的地位的國家的地位。
And so it’s not just what I do; it’s what the actions that other countries take — in this case, Russia — that are contrary to international norms.  It’s the price they pay.  They are not — they are not able to dictate what happens in the world.  There are other nations of significant consequence — i.e. the United States of America being one of them. 所以這不僅僅是我所做的；這就是其他國家—在這種情況下，俄羅斯—採取的違反國際規範的行動。這是他們付出的代價。他們不是—他們無法決定世界上發生的事情。還有其他具有重大影響的國家—美利堅合眾國就是其中之一。

Q  Mr. President, just a quick follow on the same theme of consequences.  You said, just now, that you spoke to him a lot about human rights.  What did you say would happen if opposition leader Aleksey Navalny dies?
THE PRESIDENT:  I made it clear to him that I believe the consequences of that would be devastating for Russia. 我向他明確表示，我相信這會給俄羅斯帶來毀滅性的後果。
I’ll go back to the same point: What do you think happens when he’s saying, “It’s not about hurting Navalny,” this — you know, all the stuff he says to rationalize the treatment of Navalny — and then he dies in prison? 我會回到同一點：當他說“這不是傷害Navalny”時，你認為會發生什麼，你知道，他說的所有事情都是為了使Navalny的待遇合理化—然後他死在監獄裡?

I pointed out to him that it matters a great deal when a country, in fact — and they asked me why I thought that it was important to continue to have problems with the President of Syria.  I said, “Because he’s in violation of an international norm.  It’s called a Chemical Weapons Treaty.  Can’t be trusted.” 我向他指出，事實上，當一個國家出現時，這很重要——他們問我為什麼我認為繼續與敘利亞總統存在問題很重要。我說：「因為他違反了國際規範。它被稱為化學武器條約。不能相信。」

It’s about trust.  It’s about their ability to influence other nations in a positive way.
Look, would you like to trade our economy for Russia’s economy?  Would you like to trade?  And, by the way, we talked about trade.  I don’t have any problem with doing business with Russia, as long as they do it based upon international norms. It’s in our interest to see the Russian people do well economically.  I don’t have a problem with that. 這是關於信任。這是關於他們以積極方式影響其他國家的能力。你願意用我們的經濟換取俄羅斯的經濟嗎？你想交易嗎？順便說一下，我們談到了貿易。我對與俄羅斯做生意沒有任何問題，只要他們根據國際規範來做。看到俄羅斯人民在經濟上表現良好符合我們的利益。我沒有問題。

But if they do not act according to international norms, then guess what?  That will not — that only won’t it happen with us, it will not happen with other nations.  And he kind of talked about that — didn’t he, today? — about how the need to reach out to other countries to invest in Russia.  They won’t as long as they are convinced that, in fact, the violations —  但如果他們不按照國際規範行事，那你猜怎麼著？那不會—只會發生在我們身上，不會發生在其他國家身上。他有點談論那個—不是嗎，今天？ —關於如何接觸其他國家在俄羅斯投資的必要性。只要他們確信，事實上，違規行為—

For example, the American businessman who was in house arrest.  And I pointed out, “You want to get American business to invest?  Let him go.  Change the dynamic.”  Because American businessmen, they’re not — they’re not ready to show up.  They don’t want to hang around in Moscow. 例如，被軟禁的美國商人。我指出，「你想讓美國企業投資？放了他。改變動態。」因為美國商人，他們沒有—他們還沒有準備好出現。他們不想在莫斯科閒逛。

I mean, I — look, guys, I know we make foreign policy out to be this great, great skill that somehow is, sort of, like a secret code.  Pract- — all foreign policy is, is a logical extension of personal relationships.  It’s the way human nature functions. 我的意思是，我知道我們制訂外交政策是一種偉大的技能，有點像一個密碼。實踐——所有的外交政策都是個人關係的邏輯延伸。這是人性的運作方式。

And understand, when you run a country that does not abide by international norms, and yet you need those international norms to be somehow managed so that you can participate in the benefits that flow from them, it hurts you.  That’s not a satisfying answer: “Biden said he’d invade Russia.”  You know, it is not — you know.  By the way, that was a joke.  That’s not true. 並且要明白，當你管理一個不遵守國際規範的國家，但你需要以某種方式管理這些國際規範，以便你可以參與到它們所帶來的好處時，這會傷害你。這不是一個令人滿意的答案：「拜登說他會入侵俄羅斯。」你知道的，它不是。順便說一句，那是個笑話。這不是真的。

But my generic point is, it is — it is more complicated than that. 但我的一般觀點是，它比那更複雜。
David Sanger.  I thought I saw David.  There he is.

Q  Thank you, Mr. President.  In the run-up to this discussion, there’s been a lot of talk about the two countries spilling down into a Cold War.  And I’m wondering if there was anything that you emerged from in the discussion that made you think that he —
THE PRESIDENT:  With your permission, I’m going to take my coat off.  The sun is hot.

Q  — anything that would make you think that Mr. Putin has decided to move away from his fundamental role as a disrupter, particularly a disrupter of NATO and the United States? 
And if I could also just follow up on your description of how you gave him a list of critical infrastructure in the United States.  Did you lay out very clearly what it was that the penalty would be for interfering in that critical infrastructure?  Did you leave that vague?  Did he respond in any way to it?
THE PRESIDENT:  Let me answer your first — well, I’ll second question, first. 
I pointed out to him that we have significant cyber capability.  And he knows it.  He doesn’t know exactly what it is, but it’s significant.  And if, in fact, they violate these basic norms, we will respond with cyber.  He knows. 讓我回答你的第一個問題——好吧，我先回答第二個問題。我向他指出，我們擁有強大的網路能力。他知道。他不知道它到底是什麼，但它很重要。如果事實上，他們違反了這些基本規範，我們將通過網路做出回應。他知道這點。

Q  In the cyber way.
THE PRESIDENT:  In the cyber way.
Number two, I — I think that the last thing he wants now is a Cold War.  Without quoting him — which I don’t think is appropriate — let me ask a rhetorical question: You got a multi-thousand-mile border with China.  China is moving ahead, hellbent on election, as they say, seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world and the largest and the most powerful military in the world. 第二，我認為他現在最不想要的就是冷戰。我不是引用他的話—我認為這不合適—讓我問一個問題：你和中國有幾千英里的邊界。正如他們所說，中國正在前進，一心在選舉中，尋求成為世界上最強大的經濟體和世界上最大、最強大的軍隊。

You’re in a situation where your economy is struggling, you need to move it in a more aggressive way, in terms of growing it.  And you — I don’t think he’s looking for a Cold War with the United States.
I don’t think it’s about a — as I said to him, I said, “Your generation and mine are about 10 years apart.  This is not a ‘kumbaya’ moment, as you used to say back in the ’60s in the United States, like, ‘Let’s hug and love each other.’  But it’s clearly not in anybody’s interest — your country’s or mine — for us to be in a situation where we’re in a new Cold War.”  And I truly believe he thinks that — he understands that.
But that does not mean he’s ready to, quote, figuratively speaking, “lay down his arms,” and say, “Come on.”  He still, I believe, is concerned about being, quote, “encircled.”  He still is concerned that we, in fact, are looking to take him down, et cetera.  He still has those concerns, but I don’t think they are the driving force as to the kind of relationship he’s looking for with the United States. 我不認為這是關於—正如我對他說的，我說，「你這一代人和我這一代人相隔大約 10 年。這不是一個天真的時刻，就像你在 60 年代在美國常說的那樣，『讓我們互相擁抱和相愛。』但這顯然不符合任何人的利益—你的國家的或我的—對我們來說處於我們處於新冷戰中的情況。」我真的相信他是這麼想的—他明白這一點。但這並不意味著他準備好，比喻地說，「放下他的胳膊」，然後說，「來吧。」我相信，他仍然擔心「被包圍」。他仍然擔心我們實際上是想把他打倒，等等。他仍然有這些擔憂，但我不認為它們是他尋求與美國建立那種關係的驅動力。  
Jennifer.  Jennifer Jacobs.

Q  Thank you, Mr. President.  Is there a particular reason why the summit lasted only about three hours?  We know you had maybe allotted four to five hours.  Was there any reason it ran shorter?
Also, did — President Putin said that there were no threats or scare tactics issued.  Do you agree with that assessment, that there were no threats or scare tactics?
THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

Q  And also, did you touch on Afghanistan and the safe withdrawal of troops?
THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  Yes, yes, and yes.  Let me go back to the first part.
The reason it didn’t go longer is: When is the last time two heads of state have spent over two hours in direct conversation across a table, going into excruciating detail?  You may know of a time; I don’t.  I can’t think of one. 讓我回到第一部分。它沒有持續更長時間的原因是：兩個國家元首上一次隔著桌子直接交談兩個多小時，討論令人痛苦的細節是什麼時候？你有印象嗎？我印象中沒有過。

So we didn’t need, as we got through, when we brought in the larger group — our defense, our intelligence, and our foreign — well, our — my foreign minister — wasn’t the foreign minister — my Secretary of State was with me the whole time — our ambassador, et cetera.  We brought everybody in.  We had covered so much.
And so there was a summary done by him and by me of what we covered.  Lavrov and Blinken talked about what we had covered.  We raised things that required more amplification or made sure we didn’t have any misunderstandings.  And — and so it was — it was — kind of, after two hours there, we looked at each other like, “Okay, what next?”
What is going to happen next is we’re going to be able to look back — look ahead in three to six months, and say, “Did the things we agreed to sit down and try to work out, did it work?  Do we — are we closer to a major strategic stability talks and progress?  Are we further along in terms of…” — and go down the line.  That’s going to be the test.
I’m not sitting here saying because the President and I agreed that we would do these things, that all of a sudden, it’s going to work.  I’m not saying that.  What I’m saying is I think there’s a genuine prospect to significantly improve relations between our two countries without us giving up a single, solitary thing based on principle and/or values.

Q  There were no threats issued?
THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, no.  No.  There were no threats.  There were — as a matter of fact, I heard he quoted my mom and quoted other people today.  There was — it was very, as we say — which will shock you, coming from me — somewhat colloquial.  And we talked about basic, basic, fundamental things.  There was a — it was — and you know how I am: I explain things based on personal basis.  “What happens if,” for example. 我們談到了基本的、基本的、基本的事情。曾經有過—它曾經是—你知道我的感受：我根據個人情況解釋事情。例如「如果會發生什麼」。
And so, there are no threats, just simple assertions made.  And no “Well, if you do that, then we’ll do this” — wasn’t anything I said.  It was just letting him know where I stood; what I thought we could accomplish together; and what, in fact — if it was — if there were violations of American sovereignty, what would we do. 沒有威脅，只是做出簡單的斷言。不，「好吧，如果你這樣做，那麼我們就會這樣做」—這不是我說的。這只是讓他知道我的立場；我認為我們可以一起完成的事情；以及事實上—如果是—如果有侵犯美國主權的行為，我們會怎麼做。

Q  Can you share what you asked him about Afghanistan?  What was your particular request for Afghanistan and the U.S. troops?
THE PRESIDENT:  No, he asked us about Afghanistan.  He said that he hopes that we’re able to maintain some peace and security, and I said, “That has a lot to do with you.”  He indicated that he was prepared to, quote, “help” on Afghanistan — I won’t go into detail now; and help on — on Iran; and help on — and, in return, we told him what we wanted to do relative to bringing some stability and economic security or physical security to the people of Syria and Libya.
So, we had those discussions. 
Yamiche.

Q  Thanks so much, Mr. President.  Did you — you say that you didn’t issue any threats.  Were there any ultimatums made when it comes to ransomware?  And how will you measure success, especially when it comes to these working groups on Russian meddling and on cybersecurity?
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, it’s going to be real easy.  They either — for example, on cybersecurity, are we going to work out where they take action against ransomware criminals on Russian territory?  They didn’t do it.  I don’t think they planned it, in this case.  And they — are they going to act?  We’ll find out.
Will we commit — what can we commit to act in terms of anything affecting violating international norms that negatively affects Russia?  What are we going to agree to do?
And so, I think we have real opportunities to — to move.  And I think that one of the things that I noticed when we had the larger meeting is that people who are very, very well-informed started thinking, “You know, this could be a real problem.”  What happens if that ransomware outfit were sitting in Florida or Maine and took action, as I said, on their — their single lifeline to their economy: oil?  That would be devastating.  And they’re like — you could see them kind of go, “Oh, we do that,” but like, “Whoa.”
So it’s in — it’s in everybody’s interest that these things be acted on.  We’ll see, though, what happens from these groups we put together.

Q  Can I ask a quick follow-up question?
THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  The third one, yes.  Go ahead.

Q  Mr. President, when President Putin was questioned today about human rights, he said the reason why he’s cracking down on opposition leaders is because he doesn’t want something like January 6th to happen in Russia.  And he also said he doesn’t want to see groups formed like Black Lives Matter.  What’s your response to that, please?
THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  My response is kind of what I communicated — that I think that’s a — that’s a ridiculous comparison.  It’s one thing for literally criminals to break through cordon, go into the Capitol, kill a police officer, and be held unaccountable than it is for people objecting and marching on the Capitol and saying, “You are not allowing me to speak freely.  You are not allowing me to do A, B, C, or D.”
And so, they’re very different criteria.
Steve.  Steve Holland, Reuters.

Q  President — sorry — President Putin said he was satisfied with the answer about your comment about him being a “killer.”  Could you give us your side on this?  What did you tell him?
THE PRESIDENT:  He’s satisfied.  Why would I bring it up again?  (Laughs.)

Q  And now that you’ve talked to him, do you believe you can trust him?
THE PRESIDENT:  Look, this is not about trust; this is about self-interest and verification of self-interest.  That’s what it’s about.  So, I — virtually almost — almost anyone that I would work out an agreement with that affected the American people’s interests, I don’t say, “Well, I trust you.  No problem.”  Let’s see what happens. 這與信任無關；這是關於自我利益和自我利益的驗證。這就是意義所在。所以，幾乎所有與我達成一項影響美國人民利益的協議的人，我不會說，「好吧，我相信你。沒問題。」讓我們看看會發生什麼。
You know, as that old expression goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”  We’re going to know shortly. 你正如那句老話所說，「一吃就知道了」。我們很快就會知道。
Igor, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.

Q  Hello, Mr. President.  Hello, Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT:  You want to go on the shade?  You can’t — can you see?

Q  Thank you.  Yeah.  Yeah, yeah.  (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT:  All right.

Q  Yeah.  So, I think you know attacks in civil society and the free — free press continue inside Russia.
THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.
Q  For example, Radio Free Europe —
THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

Q  — Radio Liberty; Voice of America; Current Time TV channel, where I work, are branded foreign agents — and several other independent media.  So, we are essentially being forced out in Russia 30 years after President Yeltsin invited us in. 
My question is: After your talks with President Putin, how interested do you think he is in improving the media climate in Russia? 
THE PRESIDENT:  I wouldn’t put it that way, in terms of improving the climate.  I would, in fact, put it in terms of how much interest does he have in burnishing Russia’s reputation that is not — is viewed as not being contrary to democratic principles and free speech. 在改善氣候方面，我不會那樣說。事實上，我想說的是，他對提升俄羅斯的聲譽有多大興趣—被視為不違反民主原則和言論自由。

That’s a judgment I cannot make.  I don’t know.  But it’s not because I think he — he is interested in changing the nature of a closed society or closed government’s actions relative to what he thinks is the right of government to do what it does; it’s a very different approach. 這我無法判斷。我不知道。但這並不是因為我認為他有興趣改變封閉社會的性質或封閉政府的行為，相對於他認為的政府行事的權利；這是一種非常不同的途徑。

And, you know, there’s a couple of really good biogra- — I told him I read a couple — I read most everything he’s written and the speeches he’s made.  And — and I’ve read a couple of very good biographies, which many of you have as well. 而且，你知道，有幾本非常好的傳記——我告訴他我讀過幾本——我讀了他寫的大部分內容和他所做的演講。 而且——我讀過幾本非常好的傳記，你們中的許多人也讀過。

And I think I pointed out to him that Russia had an opportunity — that brief shining moment after Gorbachev and after things began to change drastically — to actually generate a democratic government.  But what happened was it failed and there was a great, great race among Russian intellectuals to determine what form of government would they choose and how would they choose it. 我想我向他指出，俄羅斯有機會—在戈巴契夫之後的那個短暫的閃亮時刻以及在事情開始發生巨大變化之後—真正建立一個民主政府。結果它失敗了，俄羅斯知識分子之間進行了一場激烈的競賽，以確定他們將選擇哪種政府形式以及他們將如何選擇。

And based on what I believe, Mr. Putin decided was that Russia has always been a major international power when it’s been totally united as a Russian state, not based on ideology — whether it was going back to Tsar and Commissar, straight through to the — the revolution — the Russian Revolution, and to where they are today. 根據我的看法，普丁先生認為，當俄羅斯完全統一為一個俄羅斯國家時，它一直是一個主要的國際大國，並非基於意識形態—無論是回到沙皇和政委，還是直接回到—革命—俄國革命，以及他們今天的位置。

And I think that it’s clear to me — and I’ve said it — that I think he decided that the way for Russia to be able to sustain itself as a great — quote, “great power” is to in fact unite the Russian people on just the strength of the government — the government controls — not necessarily ideologically, but the government.  而且我認為我很清楚—我已經說過了—我認為他認為俄羅斯能夠維持自己作為一個偉大的國家的方式—引用，「強大的力量」實際上是團結俄羅斯人民 僅僅依靠政府的力量—政府控制—不一定是意識形態，而是政府。

And I think that’s the — that’s the choice that was made.  I think it — I — I’m not going to second guess whether it could have been fundamentally different.  But I do think it does not lend itself to Russia maintaining itself as one of the great powers in the world. 我認為這就是 - 這就是做出的選擇。 我認為我不會再猜測它是否會從根本上不同。 但我確實認為這不利於俄羅斯保持自己作為世界大國之一的地位。

Q  Sir, one more question —
Q  One more on COVID — on COVID-19, Mr. President —
Q  Sir, could we ask you one more question, please, sir?  Thank you, sir.  Did military response ever come up in this conversation today?  Did you — in terms of the red lines that you laid down, is military response an option for a ransomware attack?
And President Putin had called you, in his press conference, an “experienced person.”  You famously told him he didn’t have a soul.  Do you now have a deeper understanding of him after this meeting?
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

Q  Mr. President —
Q  But on the military — military response, sir?
THE PRESIDENT:  No, we didn’t talk about military response.

Q  In the spirit, Mr. President, of you saying that there is no substitute for face-to-face dialogue, and also with what you said at NATO that the biggest problems right now are Russia and China — you’ve spoken many times about how you have spent perhaps more time with President Xi than any other world leader.  總統先生，本著你所說的面對面對話的精神，以及你在北約所說的，目前最大的問題是俄羅斯和中國—你已經多次談到您與習主席相處的時間可能比任何其他世界領導人都多。
So is there going to become a time where you might call him, old friend to old friend, and ask him to open up China to the World Health Organization investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of COVID-19?
那麼，是否會有一天你可以給他打電話，以老朋友對老朋友，並要求他向試圖深入了解 COVID-19 的世界衛生組織調查人員開放中國？

THE PRESIDENT:  Let’s get something straight.  We know each other well; we’re not old friends.  It’s just pure business. 讓我們搞清楚。我們彼此很了解； 我們不是老朋友。這只是純粹的公事公辦。

Q  So, I guess, my question would be that you’ve said that you were going to press China.  You signed on to the G7 communiqué that said you — the G7 were calling on China to open up to let the investigators in.  But China basically says they don’t want to be interfered with anymore.  So, what happens now?
THE PRESIDENT:  The impact — the world’s attitude toward China as it develops.  China is trying very hard to project itself as a responsible and — and a very, very forthcoming nation; that they are trying very hard to talk about how they’re taking and helping the world in terms of COVID-19 and vaccines.  And they’re trying very hard. 
Look, certain things you don’t have to explain to the people of the world.  They see the results.  Is China really actually trying to get to the bottom of this?某些事情您不必向世界人民解釋。他們看結果。中方真的想追查到底嗎？
One thing we did discuss, as I told you, in the EU and at the G7 and with NATO: What we should be doing and what I’m going to make an effort to do is rally the world to work on what is going to be the physical mechanism available to detect, early on, the next pandemic and have a mechanism by which we can respond to it and respond to it early.  It’s going to happen.  It’s going to happen.  And we need to do that. 正如我告訴過你的那樣，我們確實在歐盟、G7 和北約討論過一件事：我們應該做什麼以及我將要努力做的事情是，團結全世界致力於將要實現的目標 成為可用於及早發現下一次大流行的物理機制，並擁有一種我們可以對其做出反應並及早做出反應的機制。它會發生。它會發生。我們需要這樣做。
Thank you.

Q  Any progress on the detained Americans, sir?
Q  What did Putin say about Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed?
Q  Sir, what do you say to the families of the detained Americans?
Q  President Biden, why are you so confident Russia —
THE PRESIDENT:  The families of the detained Americans, I have hope for.

Q  Say it again; we can’t hear you.
THE PRESIDENT:  I said the families of the detained Americans came up and we discussed it.  We’re going to follow through with that discussion.  I am — I am not going to walk away on that issue.

Q  Why are you so confident he’ll change his behavior, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not confident he’ll change his behavior.  Where the hell — what do you do all the time?  When did I say I was confident?  I said —

Q  You said in the next six months you’ll be able to determine —
THE PRESIDENT:  I said — what I said was — let’s get it straight.  I said: What will change their behavior is if the rest of world reacts to them and it diminishes their standing in the world.  I’m not confident of anything; I’m just stating a fact. 就直說吧。我說：如果世界其他地方對他們做出反應並削弱他們在世界上的地位，那麼他們的行為就會改變。我對任何事情都沒有信心；我只是陳述一個事實。

Q  But given his past behavior has not changed and, in that press conference, after sitting down with you for several hours, he denied any involvement in cyberattacks; he downplayed human rights abuses; he even refused to say Aleksey Navalny’s name.  So how does that account to a constructive meeting, as President — President Putin framed it?

THE PRESIDENT:  If you don’t understand that, you’re in the wrong business.
Thank you.

（Google翻譯，Taimocracy修正）