The United States really only accounts for about 3 percent of the economic engagement with Russia. Europe is 40 percent, and so Europe's contribution to this pressure is far more than symbolic. It's very practical. And that's one of the many reasons why we have worked hard to remain in close coordination with our European partners.

Can I be blunt? Yes. Can I be diplomatic? Yes. Can I concoct a mixture of vinegar and honey when the circumstances warrant? Yes.

There are no cookie-cutter solutions that you can apply from one circumstance to another. They're different. Our interests, as implicated, are different. The tools we have at our disposal are different.

What we have done is when the threat has been directed at the United States, i.e., the terrorist threat from ISIL or Al-Qaeda in Syria, is to go after them.

For the United States to recommit itself to the obligation that we undertook in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that many other states undertook, which was to work towards disarmament and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, is something that manifestly serves our national security interests.

It's in our interest to continue with the Paris Agreement and to deal with climate change as the real threat it actually is.

I think one of the real issues that we're faced with is how we consume news, how the media is perceived, how fake news is gaining a degree of currency without criticism that is dangerous, in my judgement.