Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
Secretary of State NAME_1 said the US would consider working with Russia in some areas but would stand up for its own interests. Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary NAME_2 said Washington was not ready to collaborate militarily with Moscow. US President NAME_3 has called for improved ties with Moscow. But the new administration's diplomatic initiative comes as questions are raised about the NAME_4 team's dealings with Russia dating back to last year's election campaign. US intelligence services have concluded that Moscow hacked into emails of President NAME_3's Democratic opponents during the election. NAME_1 may be on a steep learning curve in the transition from oil executive to top diplomat. But the State Department press corps is also adjusting. We'd become accustomed to the garrulous NAME_5, now we have his opposite: The Quiet Man. So far NAME_6 has spared only a few words for us,

Summary:
1. The US has said it is willing to co-operate with Russia in the fight against terrorism but will stand up for its own interests in areas where the two sides do not see eye to eye.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
