composition there is a very strong movement towards expanding its membership to better reflect the. pluralism of the of the world community and west from only in favor of this we are convinced that the developing countries and the first of all the new economic and financial leaders in the third world countries like india brazil for example that they must be represented then they security council and we would be in favor of making them new permanent members. provided of course the decision is taken to create new permanent seats because this is the biggest split and the united nations russia is convinced that this type of division is over by. then there is medical vote that there must be consensus searching it would be very unfortunate if the reform of the security council he was voted through because this

would split the membership and those who. would vote against. and impose the reform in their eyes they expanded security council would lose legitimacy not gain legitimacy and more legitimacy is what we all want and that's why the council should be more representative but in any case while we are working very thoroughly to reach this general agreement on the reform we believe that. india certainly deserved to be to be permanent member of the security council like you said pressure is permanently blocking attempts of some of you and security council members to pass a resolution for that would allow in foreign intervention into syria but do you think a military action could still play take place going around the year when like it happened in case of iraq. well in case of iraq but also in case of the former

yugoslavia yes it is it is possible and you just cited that one example there are some others but i also feel that those who would like to interfere in the syrian crisis they don't want to do this without some kind of legitimacy or at least i would some kind often action in the united nations which could be used to justify this as being legitimate some people would like very much to internationalize this situation and to expand the violence beyond the syrian border set them said being made to specially in cases when the refugees have to flee syria because of the disproportionate actions by the government forces but on the other side the position the armed groups of their position which are

several which are not united on this single come on the whole series of acceptable methods absolutely contrary to international humanitarian law. they can cause to just. the staging terrorist attacks and that is very disheartening that our western called digs in the security council started to refuse. condemning terrorist attacks in syria saying that yes there is most bed but you must take into account the overall context of what is going on in syria and why people resort to terrorist attacks it's absolutely unacceptable and this logic might lead us if we follow this logic might lead us to a very dangerous situation not only in the middle east but in other parts of the world

if. patmos and the west would begin to. qualify terrorist as. bad terrorist and acceptable terrorists one more reason that arises time to time that could actually ok the foreign intervention is serious possession of chemical weapons do you believe that syria will use chemical weapons or is this another pretext for invasion i don't believe syria would use chemical weapons it would be political. suicide for the government if it does every time we hear rumors or pieces of information come to surface that the syrians are doing something that would be a chemical weapons and we double check with ripple check we go directly to the government and we get all the time to get the very firm assurances that this is not going to be used on the any circumstances. information is which correlates with the

information then americans have i understand that the latest. reports about some movement of the chemical weapons are related to the. steps that they can by the government to concentrate the chemical stuff which has been dispersed. in various locations into two sites. to make sure that that is absolutely protected and it is also accept that by. everyone including western colleagues the europeans and americans that the biggest threat. in this situation is. the probability that the rebels might take hold of chemical weapons and therefore when while recognizing these are no western friends say but. all the responsibilities

with the syrian government even the rebels they called it it's a very strange logic because at the same time there was a very people encourage rebels not to negotiate with the government but to continue fighting and giving them arms money and moral and political support so it's a very controversial position. in general the logic of those who say no negotiations with us it is really very controversial and very dangerous because well they're not justifying what the government is doing they have been making a lot of mistakes have been using force disproportionately the security forces clearly were. prepared to face the public. protests and the protests in the cities and in the villages they have been

threatening you know to call into foreign aggression not to keep law and order civilized men there but their position is provoking the government as i said resorting to terrorist attacks taking hostages and also introducing into this conflict the stick there in a mansion which is very dangerous it is already reverberating in the muslim world. and be. ethnic and confessional sic their income position of syria is so complex that if. chaos. there it was. all over the region but coming back to the present situation if people who say no negotiations with us that if they believe that.

he's departure in whatever form is number one priority then they must understand that for these geopolitical goal of theirs they would have to pay the price but the price in the lives of the serious of the syrian civilians. will priority number one is not somebody whose head is these to say. and of the bloodshed and eve they say they want to save syria and to save syrians then they should join us and should. leave the old those who are fighting inside syria to stop doing this and sit down to negotiate without any preconditions and the fate of us that must be decided by the syrian people not by the i would say they're. part of the syrian opposition.

that can sense. the story.

it.

lifts. live. live. live live. science technology innovation all the latest developments from around russia we've got the future covered. russia has been heavily criticized in the west for blocking their time so the united states and its allies to get things right in syria do you think that if russia has handled it differently from the very beginning let's say

a year ago convinced us to step down then thinks would be different we're not in the business of regime change and some of the. regional players were suggesting to us why don't you tell president asked to leave we will arrange for some. safe haven for. my answer is very simple if indeed those who suggest that the stores have this in mind they should take a directly to president that's why shall they use us as postman. when the crisis started two thousand the level in august few months after the crisis started it was russia who suggested. that the security council react and there was a statement adopted by consensus which contained all the right things that everyone must stop fighting and that the dialogue must begin then we supported the arab

league plan with indorsed the arab league observers to be sent to syria and again work very early was damascus to accept them. unfortunately the mission was aborted for no good reason it was a board that exactly at the time in december two thousand and eleven they submitted their first report to the security council which was rather on the objective site and which was not putting all the blame on the government only but also describing the atrocities and mis wrongdoings by the by the opposition groups then the arab league aborted the mission and then the un observers were deployed and as the relative calm started to be to be seen. not sustainable but still some signs of stabilization. brought to

be as the un observers then there was an upsurge of provocations in the areas where the young the service were working and the purpose was very obvious to us the purpose was to create a situation which would be unbearable for for them to continue and that was. achieved so they left as well and then of course in june last year in june this year. in june two thousand and twelve in geneva there was a action group initiated by kofi annan our very strong support because we for quite some time had been suggesting that the key i would cite the players meet and try to see whether they can reach a common approach to creating conditions. in which the syrian potus would be negotiating their own future without outside interference with managed to agree on

this on this sequence. stop fighting the point and to look at doors. let them negotiate become position of the transitional governing organ this organ while keeping the state institutions should prepare for elections and should draft a new constitution. and we say fight this is consensus let's let's stick to it let's send this message very strongly. in sync and to all of those who are fighting how western france who just signed this document said no this is not enough we have to have a security council chapter seven resolution and we have to have some addition to this scheme saying that us that there's a lot but this is not what we agreed so. our tradition is when we negotiate something and when when we agree on something we respect the agreement

unfortunately those of our partners who negotiated with us in geneva probably have different habits and we still feel that the negative effect of this. so the geneva scheme is absolutely. actual today. who was appointed to replace kofi annan and reiterated that it is the basis for his activities we are in favor of unifying that position and after the geneva meeting we have been insisting that all of those who have influence on the opposition groups should help unify it on the platform of the geneva communiqué and so we have been sending the same message to the government and to the opposition guys this is the basis do what the geneva communiqué suggests it's in your interest down and negotiate. but the meeting which indorsed the syrian national

coalition. and which was supported by the by the west an important regional players adopted also declaration which says that the main goal of the opposition is dismantling the toppling the regime and dismantling dismantling its institutions a direct directly opposite to what the geneva communiqué said i understand that no one is talking to their position regarding the need to be a bit more realistic and to regarding the need the void. positions which are basically ruining the country they chose the claimant of patrick me thousand turkish syrian border is that part of solution and where they really targeted at well first we understand of course the concern of turkey and of all other countries who are continuing to receive syrian refugees it's a burden. under any circumstances and of course the situation

is quite tense the opposition. in the region in the syrian regions border in turkey. it's quite active probably trying to trigger some. cross border activities and then. having the international community you know revolt against the border violations incidents happened and the cross border fire which took place several times. we. were raising this issue with the syrians and we believe that what they explain to us is credible this was not intentional be able to chase the opposition groups who were taking them and then fleeing. and we immediately suggested to the turks and

the syrians that we might help to create a direct communication line so that in real time they can check whenever an incident that they explained. the syrians were regulatory. said that they do have their own channels of communication. and then this issue of petraeus was raised we recognize the right for turkey to think about its own security and the right of turkey to use for this purpose the international arrangements which turkey has in that particular case nato membership. and we accepted this as a given. on the other hand the more the military had to be or you accumulate in one place. the more risk you have that this had the or when they would be used. as for the. purpose of this

deployment yes i read and hear that some experts believe that if it is intended to prevent any. syrian crossfire. then it could be positioned to be different and that it is in the visits to be positioned some people say it is quite. useful to protect the. american radar which is part of the american missile defense system building codes in the threat from iran. if this is the case then it is even more risky i would say because this multiple purpose deployment. could create additional. temptations about iran rather than syria

well that's what that's what some people say. the configuration as it is being presented in the media it. really looks like it could be used against the real you know syria is not the only issue between america and russia first think obama did when he got reelected is that he signed the so-called magnitsky law that would sanction russian citizens and some russian officials what does it tell you about the mistake if they were actually u.s. relations with britain about my health but i don't think this was the first thing about one hundred first was reelected this was inevitable with. the senators senator cardin. some other centered use this idea. it was clearly. to create catch twenty two for the administration because that ministration was moving the removal of jacksonville. amendment with the support of quite

a number of people on the hill. and this was absolutely obvious that every can someone that because it was rushed accession to w two. keeping jackson then it would be depriving the american companies of the benefits of. membership of the russian federation so they had to do this. anyway and then the republicans i think decided to have this trick to hinge the jackson very. removal on magnitsky act which was at that moment i think most. against president obama. because as for the russian citizens who have been included on that list and they haven't seen that it's still. not published.

if they want to prevent russian citizens they don't like the united states they can do it without their guardians without any show. if they wanted to freeze the assets of any of us they can do this just going to the court and presenting evidence. again without any show without any public relations. campaigns but they believe that one of the achievements probably as the ministration presented itself teaches for the last four years one of the achievements was the reset with the russian federation and they want to hit obama exactly. in this reset think. it's unfortunate because it makes. domestic politicking. dominating the international agenda and dominating. in the minds of many almost every single issue is happening between

russia and the united states and which is much much more. comprehensive and complex than just the human rights interpretation by the american senators well remember the off record conversation that obama and mediator had and obama promised to be more flexible right after elections but from what you're saying how how how much flexible can he really be or allow himself to be with this republican opposition in congress well i think that's the peculiarities of the american system and the congressman can freeze consideration of. very important issues just because the beef from his particular state is not being admitted one can through another for the senate the reasons and. the issues of global importance could be just frozen because of the. interest of

one single state in the united states. and the interest having nothing to do with the substance of the issue in question. so sometimes the issues of huge importance like the you know the israeli palestinian conflict and the need to settle it being kept hostages for years and years. because of the peculiarity of the american electoral cycles we would prefer. to approach international issues on the basis of the their merit and then the basis of the crying need to do something together. without looking back at your domestic politicking interests so we'll have more questions for a minister thank you very much for this interview thank you.

deadly rivals the decades. if you had fifteen thousand people killing each other in any other country there would be diplomats there would be mediators. self-imposed out costs from society i will attack myself and my the attack my brother understand my one tank engine of law going to be basically attacked the columns of my anger and my frustration. that upgrader well into the top of the home.

to the most violent gangs in the us history. is just all modeled kill or be killed with the colors matching the national flag. of this country uses violence when it reaches its and then it legitimizes the violence they are made in america on the oxy. you know how sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture.

more news today violence has once again flared up. these are the images from seeing from the streets of canada. giant corporations are today. sigrid laboratories here mccurry was able to build a new most sophisticated robot which fortunately doesn't give a darn about anything tim's mission to teach music creation why it should care about humans and world this is why you should care only.