♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with the chinese-american summit in florida. president xi jinping arrived today for a highly anticipated meeting with president trump. it is the first bilateral meeting between the two leaders and an important step in improving u.s.-china relations. trump is expected to press his on issuesunterpart like trade deficit and north korea. president xi jinping is seeking assurances that washington will adhere to the one china policy. joining me now to talk about the summit is tom donlon, national

security adviser in the obama administration and has met the president of china a number of times. i am pleased to have him back on this program. welcome. as national security adviser, you made china a particular area of interest for yourself. what do you think the chinese coming here are expecting? what do they hope to accomplish? is anor both sides it important meeting. it is the most important diplomatic meeting that president trump has had so far in his presidency by far. on the chinese side, their approach would be to have a successful meeting. i think they put a high premium on having a successful medium. particularly moving forward towards the fall when the chinese leadership change takes place. in october this year you will have changes in policy on the

standing committee. the next five years of president xi jinping's tenure. he will want to have a successful meeting. they want to show that they can operate effectively on the international stage. i think he will try to get this on the path so that he does not have conflict or crisis when he has to select his own leadership at the end of the year. charlie: he is looking ahead to the congress that takes place in october and november? tom: that is right. he will select the leadership for the next five years. what did he want to avoid? he will certainly want to avoid any type of sharp trade conflict between now and then, keeping the chinese economy on track to meet its growth and other goals. the one thing that could take china off track is conflict with united states and i think he will try to put into place a process that will avoid conflict, at least in the short

and medium term. charlie: what do think the chinese think of president trump? tom: one thing will happen is they are coming here to take his measure. as will president trump of president xi. as i said, the summit is taking place early in the trump administration. number it is taking place before two, the trump administration has outlined in any public or definitive way their policy towards asia. that is one of the easy -- one of the interesting things we can talk about. there is not a strategy or policy perspective laid out. number three, it is pretty clear that the trump administration is developing those, particularly trained and perhaps north korea. charlie: the trump administration has not filled out crucial positions at the state department and other places. tom: exactly right.

you don't have in place, except for a couple of people with experience on the trump administration team right now. you have an administration that is slow in filling out its personnel, so given those circumstances, you are not given a real precise set of goals. what do you do in that setting? they will look to establish a personal report between the two presidents. they will take time over the 24-25 hours to take the measure of each other. you lay out your agenda. it would be most useful, but i don't know we are ready to do this -- to lay out a strategic approach to asia and china. i think you are more likely to see the goal of having a personal report, -- personal rapport, and how they will push through the particular issues.

particular issues. charlie: the president has talking about trade for a long time. secondly and more difficult every day is north korea. tom: no doubt. with respect to trade coming out , of the campaign, president trump will put a high priority on addressing trade issues. it is interesting, coming into his administration, he was hard on a number of issues. he took into question the one china policy. secretary tillerson made comments about blocking the south sea islands. they threatened to name china a currency regulator on day one of the administration, tariffs. this is a much more accommodating stance, but trade is still front and center. there are real issues on trade between the u.s. and china. there is a large trade deficit, but the focus should be on access for investment and the treatment of u.s. companies, but you make the point on the

security side, the most important security challenge in asia is north korea. that has to be front and center for president xi and president trump. we need an intensified focused and approach. secretary tillerson in asia said that the last couple of approaches have failed to achieve our goals. that is true, almost across every dimension. the direction in terms of the north korean nuclear program, going in a negative direction. all the indicators are negative with respect to the development of weapons and the means to deliver them. that has to be a high priority. i don't know you will come out of this session with an agreement on how to approach it. but you are exactly right.

this has to be front and center. this is a national security crisis coming at us like a freight train. charlie: president obama told president-elect trump that it is the most pressing and difficult challenge as he assumes the presidency. start with china, why have they been in the past unwilling to take the kinds of moves that the united states and other asian neighbors wanted them to do? tom: a number of things. number one is the historic relationship between china and north korea. that relationship has been frayed of late. it is probably in the worst shape it has been in many decades. president xi has not received kim jong-un, and there have been a lot of tensions developing between the two countries. the relationship is not in good shape.

number two is a deep chinese concern about stability. stability on the korean peninsula, and not undertaking a set of steps which might result in some sort of precipitous collapse or a destabilizing of the situation. and third, they still regard allied buffer.an i think that the challenge is coming into focus, which is the united states will have to take a number of steps to address the north korea nuclear challenge. the challenge is becoming more complex for this reason. if in fact as evidenced by reports of nuclear tests. they could be moving toward six if the press reports are correct -- if you have a country moving towards a larger number of nuclear weapons, it presents a more complicated problem.

for a number of reasons. number one, it is a threat to the region and the u.s. homeland. number two, it becomes a much more difficult set of targets the more weapons they have. number three, they become a proliferation threat. if a country gets past the number of weapons it needs to protect itself, it becomes a real threat in terms of proliferation. and they have shown their willingness to proliferate in the past. charlie: here is what i don't understand. do they understand the severity of the issue of north korea having nuclear weapons that they can deliver to south korea or the united states? wherever they might want to target. do the chinese accept the severity of that and why it is so unacceptable to the united states? tom: number one, they don't think they would be the target. number two, we have worked hard

in dialogue with the chinese to come to a joint assessment as to what the threat is and what the north korean intentions might be. this is the dialogue. this is the conversation between the united states and china. these progress has made, but we are not there with respect to how severe and what kind of timeframe this is on. it is an urgent problem, and the chinese can't view it multi-dimensionally. it can't be a stability problem in the region -- it has to be done multi-dimensionally. they can have north korea moving toward a situation where they have weapons that can be miniaturized and put on delivery united that can reach states interest. given that the united states , will have to take a number of

steps which will be strategically uncomfortable for china, but don't have anything to do with china. this is where the test in the relationship will be. charlie: do you think the chinese take seriously the president's statement that if the chinese do not help, the united states may have to go it alone? tom: it is a statement of fact. the president of the united states has an obligation to protect the united states from threats. over the course of the next period of time, if we don't get the kind of cooperation, joint effort with china to address the north korean program, any president would make a similar statement. the united states will take whatever steps it has to take to protect itself. the alternative is develop an approach with the chinese. i think there are a number of things we can do in turn

including dramatically , increasing the economic pressure on north korea. we should move to an iran-style set of sanctions on north korea -- and i oversaw the iranian sanction effort for a number of years for the united states -- to move sanctions to a level and pressure that are regime threatening. there are a number of steps we can take. we have to continue to build out our defenses in the region in which is giving china discomfort, particularly with respect to what we have to do in south korea. we should have a dialogue with china about the future of the peninsula looks like. charlie: at a summit like this will human rights be at all , discussed? tom: i don't think the chinese will raise it. i think it is up to the president to raise it. charlie: that is my question. do expect the president of the united states will raise the issue of human rights, or is he so intent on finding some way out of north korea and trade and

perhaps some other important issues that human rights does not get to the table? tom: this has been an administration which has backed off raising human rights in any context. i think it is a mistake. i can't think of a context where the trump administration has put human rights in the mix in terms of strategic dialogue and the conversations we are having with nations around the world, so i don't have high hopes that he -- that the president will raise human rights issues here. this is a vacuum. this is a vacuum. leadership vacuum that is not one we should be creating, but i fear we are. our backing off on the tpp, the transpacific partnership, which was a trait of arrangements made with eight other countries in the region -- on the first day

of the trump administration, we backed off of that agreement. that was a gift to the chinese. our partners are backing off of the paris toward. -- paris accord. that is another area where chinese leadership can take themselves off the hook for some of the obligations they have made. we have taken a number of steps, and human rights is a good example, trade agreements are a good example, climate is a good example, where we open up a backing for others to step in. charlie: you know what the north koreans want? tom: the north koreans want to get to a point where the world recognizes them as a nuclear power. i think that is where the north koreans -- the north korean goal is. charlie: so therefore what would it take to have them give up that goal? what combination of things, and

one thing they want is bipartisan negotiations with the united states, some kind of agreement that united states will not attack them. i assume they want some kind of economic support. is that remotely possible if the goal is to be a nuclear state? tom: the first point is to put pressure on them now prior to them getting to the goal of having the means of delivering nuclear weapons via an icbm to the united states, and that is why the engagement and pressure is now important. if you got into a set of negotiations with the north koreans, i certainly don't think anybody in the united states would support the united states acknowledging them as a nuclear weapons state, but there is a whole range of things under discussion about the various arrangements on the peninsula and the future of the peninsula,

including taking into account north korea's security needs. charlie: can we trust them, or is this a trust but verify circumstance? tom: no, you can't trust the north koreans. this is an important point. we entered into an agreed framework during the clinton administration that did freeze the nuclear weapons production facilities in north korea for a number of years. we discovered at the beginning of the bush administration that they were cheating on the deal. it probably would have been a better approach than to keep in place the arrangements we had a freezing one part of the program, then addressing the areas where they were cheating, as opposed to walking away from the entire deal, which is what we did. the result has been -- and we

also entered into early on making the obama administration a set of understandings with the north koreans, which they dwelt -- welched on, which means the pressure campaign working with the chinese and others needs to be especially harsh. and, by the way, at the end of the day, we need to do a careful look at our other options. charlie: in meetings like this, between two of the most powerful people in the world, do they orr me alone -- meet alone, is it always necessary to have advisors and other people there. tom: in lots of relationships, the president and the leader of the other country will meet one-on-one. that is unusual in the u.s.-chinese context for a lot of reasons, including the system

that the chinese president represents. as you know i negotiated the , sunny land summit in 2013 between president xi and president obama. as part of that summit, we did put in place a time for a one-on-one conversation. and it did take place. it is unusual, but it did take place in the sunny land summit. my understanding is the trump administration is trying to have some one-on-one time. it is never truly one-on-one because there will have to be translators. the principles plus the translators, i think they are trying to arrange that today in florida. they will try to have an informal dinner tonight between the presidents and spouses over dinner. it is not typical in the chinese- china-u.s. setting, but since sunny land, it has happened a couple of times and i think it will happen today. charlie: thank you for joining us.

tom: nice talking to you. thank you for having me. charlie: tom donilon in washington. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: ian bremmer is here. he is the president of the eurasia group. he recently traveled to the middle east. he joins me now for a conversation about that region and other foreign policy developments of the day. i am pleased to have him back at

this table. welcome. this particular day, where the president is reacting to syria before he goes to palm beach to talk to the other most powerful person in the world -- a big day for foreign policy. ian: by far the most important day for global issues since trump has been elected president. charlie: start with china and move to syria. you just got back from the middle east. ian: china, what can you say? this is the single most important meeting that trump has had since being elected. the orientation trump has had towards china, both on the campaign and since he has been elected has been pretty strong and hawkish rhetoric. some of those things he has walked back. taiwan, he has walked back somewhat, although there is talk about selling arms to the taiwanese. currency he has walked back, but other issues like north korea, south china sea, and trade, he

has not walked back one bit, and the people around him are not hawks or doves, they are either pretty hawkish or quite hawkish. the notion that trump will have a good meeting with xi jinping, i don't think he wants to have clearly he wants to project strength in terms of the united states and feels like the obama administration has been weak. charlie: he has something that he wants. he wants badly chinese cooperation on north korea. it is a pressing, immediate problem. ian: true. he also said if he does not get it, the americans are prepared to go it alone. there has been cooperation between the united states and china. in fact, after the election, the chinese decided to support a u.s. led u.n. referendum to take away chinese purchasing of north korean coal. it ended up the well over half

$1 billion per year. that was a message sent to the united states and the incoming trump administration that we are prepared to play ball with you, but we have to do it multilaterally within a framework. trump does not have a lot of interest in doing things with china within the yuan framework. he thinks the chinese need to cut these guys off. the idea that the chinese would do that themselves. they are going to say, we will cut off the banks from giving these guys money, cut off the company's keeping this economy afloat, and the risk will be on us, not the united states, because the north koreans are in our backyard. i think it is hard to come to agreement with xi jinping that we will move together on this, so it is more likely that the american will talk about sanctions. charlie: what is the timeline? when will they have the capacity both in terms of deliverability and size of the nuclear weapon? ian: those are the two things.

miniaturization to put it on an icbm. they apparently have missiles that can reach hawaii and alaska now. why we don't care about those two states but the other 48 -- i don't know. most people involved in this that i have talked to come and this is not my area of specialization, is the north koreans if they continue at the present level of development, they would be able to do that. in other words, barring impeachment, trump will have to deal with this issue. one way or the other. this is his redline. charlie: what are his options? on the stick side, number one, it the chinese, -- hit the chinese. make it uncomfortable for them not -- compel the chinese in some way to take a harder line

on the north korean economy. a second would be some form of military buildup with american naval forces that would have levels of inspections boarding , of north korean ships trying to trade out of the peninsula, and then you have direct military options to degrade and destroy north korean delivery and nuclear capabilities. combined with that are carrots. there is no reason why trump can't and shouldn't also say look, north korea, we are , prepared to sit down with you, even head of state to head of state, have cheeseburgers. trump said that on his campaign. he said they would split a cheeseburger with the guy. he is not willing to do that now, but that was his position. there is no reasons americans could not talk about providing support --

you can imagine an environment where you have the kind of inspections you presently have in iran, trump could say that this is a good deal. only is no reason why we have to be talking about sticks. charlie: why have we resisted bilateral negotiations? bilateralve had negotiations, the koreans did just not go forward. every time we have told them we we are only going to talk to you as part of a broader negotiation to try to move towards inspections, instead they test nuclear weapons and continue to test ballistic missiles. one thing i want to say which is not being reported in the media, is that so far this year they have tested fewer weapons than they tested in the same time last year. and yet everyone is making it sound like the north koreans are our on this fiscal a tory binge.

-- on this escalation binge. they believe there is more likelihood we could have confrontation because trump is practical instead -- is unbreakable rather than the north koreans themselves being out of the box. charlie: speaking of trump, after what happened with the chemical weapons used in syria, trump clearly came out and said he changed his mind. two, there are reports he may be prepared to use a military strike. ian: that's right. charlie: what does that say? ian: i feel pretty confident that nobody who voted for trump voted for him with the idea that they were voting for military strikes against syria. he was the one that was saying -- charlie: he said he opposed the iraq war. ian: after he supported it. but specifically to obama went obama had talked about the red line and many had died from chemical strikes, he told obama strongly in multiple tweets, do

not attack syria. this is not our fight. america first. we want to cut back foreign aid, take fewer refugees under trump. to talkre not going about human rights and all these countries, whether it is putin killing journalists or the chinese engaging and horrible practices internally and externally, no. suddenly he cares about syrian kids because he saw that chemical weapons were being used again? it is hard to believe that. charlie: so why is he doing this? you said it is hard to believe that he saw these atrocious pictures of children dying, or having died from chemical weapons. that wouldn't change his mind? ian: we had those pictures before. charlie: not while he was president. ian: that's true. but again, he told obama one thing. he is killing his ability to -- is showing his ability to

flip-flop. i do think given the statements he has made in the past 24 hours, the likelihood of some >> for example, his strike where whether -- chemical weapons are located. is there danger that they do that they will somehow -- there's always danger of all sorts of civilian casualties when you are talking about these sorts of strikes. unless you are just using drones, it is dangerous that americans will die in the fight as well. i think the biggest danger is the russian reaction. considering these strikes and he was going to congress and the russians were not militarily engaged in syria, that's not the case today. >> here's my question, why should we care about the russians? what are they going to do? >> maybe they will back down. maybe they're not trade >> if they don't back down, what will they do?

will they do anymore than what we did when we came in syria? the israelis have engaged in surgical strikes against syria, the russians did not respond against them. i think it's a fair point, but i also know that trump coming into things hee of the key wanted to accomplish was some fort of -- a russia that had its bad relationship with the united states and obama. clearly that has gotten fastly teamr given all of trump's and their relations with the russians. let's put it this way. if trump is concerned -- let's not talk about national interests, let's talk about trump. that thebelieves russians actually have real intel out there, either on him run any members of this team decides thatnd he he is going to engage in strikes against syria after the russians have explicitly said that the syrian government was not using

chemical weapons, i would think that trump would have some vulnerability there. idea, i've no idea. >> so-called dossier information. >> it's strange that despite the fact that you have people like ambassador haley that are taking and the kremlin every bit as harsh in her words, as we saw -- and she was investor, trumpism zero that. >> and she said she has complete approval of the president to do that. >> she has and she is still in her job so i believe that's probably the case. trump himself has made none of those statements. >> she points out the people and not to stir have been tougher on russia verbally than steve bannon or others. clearly on a enormous split within the trump administration on how to handle

russia. tillerson has been less so. clearly the u.s.-russian relationship in the last 24 hours has deteriorated more quickly i would argue, ban and any point under the obama administration. absolutely. >> the last 24 hours? >> purely on the basis of the syria issue. >> is the united states or russia has done, it's just what the president has said he might the way he is approached the syria issue, which is virtually a 180 degree shift. the trumpgo, you have administration saying look, there's no way to get rid of assad right now so it's not a priority issue. john mccain. lindsey graham, they are not fans of trump. john mccain said, i do not care what the russians do in reaction. look, my view has been from day one that syria is more of a

quagmire, then even iraq. there are lots of way to support the syrian people. over moretually bring refugees. you can provide more humanitarian aid. you can establish a safe zone. it is not -- not at all clear to me that going after the assad regime militarily is the way to go. i think something's said today is worth considering, which is talking about that we are already taking steps to move towards a transition. i thought it was very interesting. which sees a sought out. -- assad out. spokesmans a kremlin -- and so is hard to read -- this was a few hours ago. saying, russia's support for assad was not unconditional which i thought was interesting. >> i've heard that before from

russia. >> exactly. assad, at the end of the day, russia is not the only player -- and even a cap -- perhaps the most important player, in terms of assad militarily -- do iranians are doing more. food does not call the shots. putin does not call all the shots. -- many radians have been killed in action as you know. the question is to what extent putin is thinking about using his leveraging against system -- assad, but is there an opening for tillerson and trump to say, this is not about military strikes against the sod, this guide is beyond the pale. thatw need a transition does not have a sought as part of the future of syrian governments, but actually has something else. and is there a way to work with the russians on that, especially dateu are trying to court

with the russians on anti-terrorism. it will be very difficult to get that done. you at least have a glimmer of light from the kremlin statement. did the assad government do this? > i will give you a question in return. how confident are we that the syrian president is the one that actually orders all strikes from his air force? do we think he has that level of control today given the deterioration of governance in the country? >> so this was a rogue general or something? >> i don't know, i'm just saying i have a fair amount of confidence that chemical weapons were actually used by the regime against the people, that it was not as the russians claim, that they had a local depot and then it blew up. thus far, i have no reason to believe anything about who actually ordered trade i just don't. of, raises the question

what kind of governance is there? we're in our seven tier four, you have a guy that -- >> six years, beginnings of it. >> you have had millions of refugees and over 500,000 dead. has complete a sod strong putin-like top-down control over his military control given the clear lack of morale their strikes you as an open question. you could argue that the fact aat trump said this isn't -- sod is not a priority, and now we can use our weapons to destroy the morale of these people on the ground -- you could also just as easily argue this was someone within the syrian air force who decided to take a step. had nothing to do with it. >> if you are in the middle east would you go? >> to buy.

>> how do they feel about trump? >> they cautiously like trump. all of these countries -- first of all they love the fact that trump is seen to be a more stout secondly tound -- the extent that trump will go hard against terrorism and even against radical islamic terrorism. of the gulfne monarchs, he do not have that much of a problem with that. also think, the lack of focus on human rights -- obama talks a great game, did not do very -- very much in the region, but he didn't limit some of the weapons sales to buy rain. the trump administration is saying, no, let's go back and give you whatever you need. those things make them comfortable. clearly, they are also unsettled at how much they do not know. the owners for concerned about the southern laptop ban which

they thought was more than helping american air carriers that are getting crushed by people like emirates airlines trade than they thought it was really about security. i do think they are concerned about what happens if kids going to american universities, extreme vetting when they come into the country. there are things that unsettle them longer-term. as of this week, generally speaking, in the middle east the gulf states -- and talking saudi's as well, cutter as well -- qatar as well -- if you are market -- they feel more comfortable about trump than obama. because they believe his more anti-iran and that she is more likely to come to their defense if necessary? >> they think he is more focused on the traditional american allies in the region. they saw the way obama threw mubarak under the bus in egypt, the way obama said he would work

with morsi -- the hated that. >> they think trump is easier. you know what happened when he can to the white house. >> was treated well yeah. that was a better reading suffer chancellor merkel. >> this could have eager, thank you. ian bremmer. back in a moment, stay with us. ♪

>> they're hungry libya's here, he is a philosopher and author of the making a friend. his -- new documentary is the battle of mosul, takes viewers on the frontline of the fight to recapture the iraqi city from isis. here's the trailer.

>>'s earlier film was selected for the 2016 can phone festival, did focused on the kurdish melissa's fight against isis -- militias fight against isis in syria. welcome. what is it between you and the kurds? >> long story. the political. liberal,so brave, so such an exception in this area. theyare pro-west, practiced equality between they are women and men. you have women fighting in the same battle as the men. they are tolerant to work the other regions. you see the image of this christian church, which has been vandalized by isis. it is muslim girls who took the

cross back, they are valeant. i have a chance and honor to a score -- to go with them on the front lines. can be as testimony for their bravery, for the atrocity of the war, and for the bravery with which they come from this work. they the battle for mosul, are fighting at the same time as iraqis were fighting, from the .\aqi army how do they get along together? coalition, with western forces. >> and american air support? >> your support, ground support. i met some american officers, special forces. they are in the movie on the ground. friends also is a coalition of barbarity.en against it's a coalition. there is a share of tasks.

the kurds with part of the -- they open the gate of mosul, they limited the villages around it. they are dealing the battle inside mosul. i die -- i followed both of them. i signed up and away with my camera with both the kurds and golden division of the iraqi army. >> enough care more about making documentary films banned youtube at reading books about -- documentary films than about writing books? >> this gave me a chance to be firsthand witness. i had a chance to be taken with line.m on the front i had -- i felt a duty to see what i saw, to show what i saw. shown in anot be better way than with a camera.

you have to see these women wanted to death. you have to see this population of mosul surging from the ruins with hunger. you have to see these women sniped when they get a little food, there is a sniper from the roofs who will snipe them. to see this room city, the kurds and iraqi, they fight and liberate the ruined city. .t is so heartbreaking people say, berlin in 1940 4-1945, it repeats today. >> place at? themselves,t for for them -- their families, their country. army, theynd iraqi are our boots on the ground. all the kurds with whom i spent

fightand day told me, we for civilization, for values of freedom. the famous question in 1943 in america, why do we combat, why do we fight? the kurds ask the same question and they say we fight for freedom, for america, for france, against jihadism. this is a great thing to see, mostly because they are true muslims fighting against radical islam. this is a great experience and it is a great proof that the battle is not between the west and the rest. inside is long, within islam, between two sections of islam. i'm proud to have escorted, to a films, shared some experience with these liberal and

democratic muslim people. >> howard kurtz in iraq differ from the kurds and -- how do the kurds in iraq update -- differ from the current in syria? >> and away they are the same, they are brothers. the heart of every iraqi girl beats at the same pace as part of a syrian girl. but of course, as in a great peoples, there is some political differences. in iraq, there the one who i followed -- probably more pro-west, in syria there's some .emnants of leninism the russian political differences -- there are political differences. hope ofred these great a nation for the girls. >> how does the u.s. handled the

issue though we support some of formerds which drives prime minister of turkey crazy? >> america is right to support the kurds. you heard that -- you americans and we french we are supporting our brothers in arms, and our brothers in spirit. >> he says them it's -- he sees them as terrorists who want to take part of turkey back. accompanied i can tell you are not terrorists. >> humans terrorists with respect to -- different definition van isis for example. >> exactly. for the moment there are those who fight isis, they are those who fight for our values. for example, i give you one example which for me is a little deaf. world --in the muslim

this is a real test. the relationship with the jews. it is the only place in this where athe muslim world relationship with the jews and israel is a pride and not ashamed. i remember one day i was taken to a village, i do not understand, it was far from the frontline -- frontline. filmknew i was there for and all that. they insisted to bring me to the village. when i arrived in this village i understood, they wanted to show me the place of great price for them. this was the house where there was born the minister is euro. so you have a muslim country where the birthplace of the former minister of israel is not something which they have to hide. >> do remember which defense

ministry it was? i know a lot of muslim countries where this sort of place would be hidden as a sort of shame which has to be forgotten -- for bidding. here it is something which has to be praised and shown to a visitor. it makes a big difference. maybe it does not please mr. erdogan but for a foreign citizen it makes a big difference. >> so you have the kurds and iraqi army and the american army fighting. how long will it take to quickly retake muscle? >> i cannot say that. i made my point of honor in this film to show what i saw as i saw it and when i saw it. what is happening now i have no

special insight. my feeling is that it will take more time before isis are fighting -- desperate way. >> cowardly way. >> of course. they use the weapon of the koran, hostages, children on the front line. this is a shame, but they are there back against the wall and they will fight to be in. the battle which began now is very tiny and narrow streets where humvees -- you just saw my team in the trailer, no humvees, no tanks, no weapons. it has to be taken house by house, so it will take some time, but they will be defeated, and it will be important because mosul is important for two reasons.

it is a biblical city, a biblical home of evil. number two, it is the capital of isi, all the terrorist attacks. they hate us. in the last month or years, had the brain in syria and mosul, so this battle is crucial. >> the next target is a city in iraq. >> right where there is the big , part of the leadership of isis from and after that raqqa.

bernard-henri: we are going to enter? >> yet. [speaking in french] ♪ [gunfire] charlie: my great friend, it is great to have your on the program. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

mark: i am mark crumpton. you are watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with a check of your first word news. u.s. military officials are contradicting russia's claims it suspended the conflicts conflict talks in protest of the strikes in syria. the u.s. and russia clashed today on whether to maintain the hotline aimed at preventing midair collisions of warplanes in syria. the a.p., citing officials, also said they are looking into whether russia participated in the chemical weapons attack. the u.s. ambassador to the united nations says the u.s. took "a very measured step last night in syria and is prepared to do more." >> our military destroyed the