hello and welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle russia's foreign policy in two thousand and thirteen what can we expect what about the so-called reset with the

united states and will international law be even less relevant than last year. to discuss russia's foreign policy in two thousand and thirteen i'm joined by. he is the editor in chief of rushing global affairs marks about that he is a senior lecturer in research or international relations at moscow's same university and dimitri bobbitt she is a political analyst with the voice of russia radio station. in fact that means you can jump in anytime you want you don't do you think two thousand and thirteen holds for russia's foreign policy and right now it's a very turbulent time as you can remain turbulent or yes. maybe it will be even more terrible and no fortunately the syrian crisis continues and a year ago everybody predicted also to fall soon immediately and now we are what we were told he has to go right ok i find it very interesting every time someone like

hillary clinton says this person must go some most of the time all the time they go eventually sooner or later we are but that can. take much more time so for russian diplomacy was a very important issue in two thousand and twelve and certainly will remain these year also i think the very important and quite a troublesome area will be continuation of building our eurasian union because it seems to be a real priority for us near the ship but of course. we shouldn't underestimate trouble speed even inside this limited circle of compass not to talk about some other who we expect to join we just heard that the syrian crisis isn't as important in russian foreign policy in russia was severely criticised last year and in this new year for its policy toward syria warranted oh well i think they're out there in

the last few months starting changing why didn't i think so i've noticed it is no because for example the brazilian president comes here and she says the chip prescience russia stubborn position well china has been supporting russia all alone . well i think so basically the brics countries are starting to have more and more dollars so both the west and stance on syria and i think the reason is all b.s. the west was gearing up for a week no one drama short on drama in syria they expected you know the good people to chase the evil dictator ok maybe a few deaths and maybe a few people right away well the good and evil the good people are the people from these annoying less free syrian army and no one knows who they are both is my point is well it was initially it was syrian national council no wait syrian national coalition after all never called terrorists mark go ahead tell us want to know in

the last year you were all terrorists may though they commit terrorist acts i think the tone is changed also because what we have seen is that the western media which has done a very good job of preventing presenting an extremely black and white simplistic cartoonish. good versus bad narrative of what's going on hasn't been able to conceal the atrocities the sheer bloody atrocities that have been committed by the rebels and they can't hide the true nature of the conflict any longer which is an ethno religious conflict the fact that this revolution has always been a sunni and not just a sunni butt. they will harvest for me because there are plenty of some of these that actually support the government. and this is a sunni sectarian and jihadist you had us from around the world from the united states japan china as well as a little bit at least yes many from libya they have descended and it is that

against shall we say the secular sunni population the alloy the christians especially have been terribly persecuted even the through and the kurds even have it's a war of survival for them and many many ways but russia is consistently take an international law position but that doesn't get out into the media very much does it. russian position is actually very much misunderstood in the west. everybody believes that russia sports. and as many. russian diplomats say no we don't but no one no one believes in fact russian position is very simple it's not about it's not about syria it's not about the middle east it's about to prevent the libyan mortal deal even precedent to become a model for future settlement of local conflicts. of

a couple of months ago when they said that that's was the key core of russian position michael not just a question of the regional conflicts and the regime changes but i would say also and i'm sure you would agree with me also a question of the entire international order and we're talking the basic fundamental principles of the united nations charter so i state sovereignty not interference in domestic affairs and the use of completely vanished from the western government and media lexicon they don't even because it's humanitarian interventions right that's sounds nice right it's a clever guys the problem is that there is this quarter mia soul of the west was gearing up for a melodrama with we can't i didn't want a tragedy without an end during the whole year to be frank with you i was tormented by western television stations which ask me every two weeks when is russia going to adopt a sub eighty moved by the russian government any phrase lover all for by his their

protests was interpreted as some woman of russia in their direction so when finally sort of an opposite movement happened and a lot of debris he me obviously revealed a plan which bore through russia into matter states have and which is much closer to russian view of the situation well there's a let me go in back six months it's a journey we call exactly then these stations for so surprised and they gave their ask me the same question how do you think it indicates that changes in the russian position well likely russian position didn't change during the whole year edition question is the only one that didn't change. but what also shows their expectation of this what you're saying is the presumption of this quick regime change and of the right to do it and i would say the duty to do it and to do it quickly all over the world they expect the assad government but isn't it really naive to assume that because which is say for example us on just simply leaves this is situation on the

ground change i mean if it's a sectarian conflict clearly that's why i believe there is no intervention because actually the initial stance was we do it the proximate as in libya but no even in the west and even the neighboring countries like turkey people understand it's too risky too dangerous finally it will not change anything can disappear everybody's human being who knows what happens but it will not change the situation because those who are behind him they are not behind they're really as you as you rightly pointed out they are more afraid of those who can come then all of us as dictatorship many are extremely unhappy with him but they see it is a lesser of evil you know i'm lonely when i read western media and watch western television you know they always say russia's last friend in the arab world i mean what kind of influence does russia have in syria with syria and in the region again

because it looks to me it's taking a principled stand here i think it's a last little overestimate that russia's influence in syria and their moment of russian support for syrians are already to meet it and i kind of the tent why because things didn't want to go according to the west and scenario so they must find a scapegoat why is he still there ok probably russia supplied him weapon so gave him my knee i read stories about russia actually saying in cash and printing money for us out i think there is a deeper problem behind it you know all over. and now that obama is coming to power with mr brown and as the chief will say we're going to have more drawn appropriations where when to have united states more involved in the world but at a distance not saying troops like bush did it by probably keeping people by drones so the problem is that. how accurate are these drones going to be if the west miscalculated in syria i mean we're even in russia we see how it has

a tremendously distorted picture of russian reality you know we human deem it is a way that point you in the new caravan stuff like that so there is no we're there some less trust in the united states as the spall full force which has technical capability to kill someone in yemen or enough to gain a stone or in pakistan thousands of miles. away from american borders how accurate is they thinking about the drones sincere a don't believe it's possible because whom you will target. in pakistan i can understand it's very damaging for united states but i know whom the whom they try to strike but in syria there's a lot of this experience was sort of chaotic what there was no from playing there so i don't believe that the united states and the bomb administration will be that eager to intervene in any form i'm afraid they're going to kill people on both sides because there are many possible terrorism suspects in that position and i

think what you gentlemen are all green here is it never works out the way you expect to go. asleep point my background of the u.s. military a veteran of six years i have to say that i actually american drones have been operating over syria syrian air space and have been for well over a year and that's been documented in the western press as a well as the syrian and the russian and everyone else has the intelligence gathering capability of these and they're passing on of this information through this amorphous branded free syrian army. that should not be underestimated for the military but then in the sense that the of that for many of the advances that we've seen on the rebels or particularly in the north and rural areas of the country i would like to come back to your question is does russia have friends in the middle east i'm afraid it doesn't but i'm pretty sure no one else relations with all countries and i'll talk to everyone in the region the problem is that this is the

revelation of this year libya is not going to be a friend of the united states under the new government and i think it's a travesty when mike keane and graham accused susan rice of misinterpreting what happened the in people that i wanted to call their own article in washington post where they said that we should talk because if we don't topple him well i'm not going to have syrians as good friends as believe you are right and then i'm going to be on scene here we're going to go with you after that short break we'll continue our discussion on russian foreign policy stays on. the. least be cool language. programs and documentaries in arabic

it's all here on. reporting from the world talks about six of the ip interviews intriguing story for you. in trying arabic to find out more visit arabic. dot com. illo. lynn

thank you lou let's. play live plug plug elite. plug play.

live. welcome back to crossfire i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're talking about russia's foreign policy gentlemen at the end of last year secretary of state hillary clinton warned about the research he does ation of russia and the post

soviet space i want to go through all three of you your reaction to that. here if there was a. signature of state recruited because of domestic political reasons it was actually a coalition of ministration and obama had to do it due to situation democratic party. and i must see she was very much disciplined secretary of state she basically fulfilled the policy formulated in the white house but now you know cheering on the fact that qaddafi was murdered when we came he died. that's that was actually a position of many in the states. probably along i think you are the last and so but but in the russian issue of. the reset wasn't he were equally into this idea bob she was going off to work on that as obama wanted but no since

she leaves office ship would say what she really believed and i was not at all surprised because the hillary clinton comes from ninety nine two years as a politician and at that time that was actually the main goal so we see that they were views are very consistent but you know they're saying the research he does ation of russia i mean and it just i'm with speech like it's such a retreat into such false historical analogies such she. cold war dog i was shocked literally shocked he said a little pleased as well because of what that will force russia to do via v the united states but. we might as well speak of the reed knots of occasion of europe as the e.u. the return to manifest destiny with nafta and the japanese co-prosperity sphere

with the asian pacific economic community i mean this is sheer absurdity and. i have socialist tendencies myself but the call the eurasian union and what russia is today the result of unification is so far from the truth in a couple of sentences what is russia doing in its neighborhood this is a very natural in this world the globalized neoliberal fast moving twenty first century world regionalization this is a natural tendency economic and political defensive tendency we see it occurring all over the world europe is the pioneer after the united states south america mirka sore. the eurasian union is only natural because of the cultural the historical the language the infrastructure. and actually it's largely for security reasons to the well there's no way as you point out of it russia doesn't want to recreate the soviet union because the soviet union cost russia

a loss because i do you see really that would be the previous speaker because i didn't find anything new in this statement i don't think it was their full back into cold war because i've heard such statements in the ninety s. . a year or so which is true basically it's an official same official position of the united states well what does it come from demon i mean is it because it's because russia is a threat to or citizens get in line arms from a very simplified version of reality and the simplified version of reality leads to a lot of mistakes for years the united states has been sinking thinking that the source of authoritarianism in all the post sort of country is they are still good legacy take the old people wait you know take the old soviet officials said wait replace them with a new lead. you're going to have a democracy well we see now with more and more facts revealed about saakashvili that you can break with your soviet boss you can actually destroy three hundred

georgian history that sort of connected you could ukraine it is well yeah you can destroy all your cost and still be all storytelling i would add russia not playing the role under the putin government not just putin of course he's only one person but the entire russian government that has emerged over the last ten years they are not playing the role that was assigned to them they were supposed to surrender their sovereignty their independence become an appendage to europe and the west and this was supposed to form a a euro siberia bloc which would help rise the counter of china they know they only have ten to fifteen years before they can't interfere as much as they could in the world russia hasn't played that game they've they've they've maintained a semblance not complete and there are over and so we've been demonized for doing and then i think. version over it is not only about four russians about for the

next days because well let's see a chain of disappointments you should go was a disappointment saakashvili was a disappointment why do have all these disappointment ok they say that there are russian agents operating there well i'm afraid the reason is this simplified version of reality these countries have dictators will they roll they don't need to come back to the soviet union to become a third area but let's talk about the reset because this is what is on the in the in the news right now my theory is this and agree or disagree with me there was never a reset it was just a way for the united states and russia to start talking again ok that's what the reset has really been about because i don't see how russia has benefited all over the last four years in its relationship with the united states the research was. still by the end of two thousand and eight by then. our relationship was at the worst stage since maybe earlier on the reagan time and of course it was completely unacceptable and we should be grateful to me to be

a different obama that they brought our relationship back to workable level s. for east side it wasn't a policy it wasn't actually complicated but limit the tradeoff. russian united states identified couple of the arrests where they come. but profoundly about the little bit and the result was positive what he said his over reset was two thousand and eight two thousand and twelve because the two countries have to talk to each other they have things they common issues that they have to deal with i would draw a little bit of exception with what you said that there were there was no reset there was a limited reset and it was a tit for tat trade for deals and out of it the united states got russian cooperation on afghanistan. a limited form of at least dialogue on iran and north korea what the united. russia got out of this

deal was the united states and the west stopped direct coverts you would call it the medic on conventional warfare as the united states military manual calls it interference in the countries of the near abroad the former soviet union that the color revolutions in georgia and ukraine which have fallen of their own accord in kurdistan as well what do you think that's a fair trade off i mean they failed a. lot of mail but the fear of the u.s. could have been pumping much more into these countries economically militarily politically in order to support but they backed off that after the end of the bush years i think that was the real tradeoff of the reset but i think that's about the end. well i think from the american side it reminds me all day long and we're told. it was organized by a pragmatist by nixon and it was completely destroyed jimmy carter who was an ideologue in the united states france and falls over russia you can on divide them

by party lines. democrats are not pro russian oil and i russian republics are not for arsenal and russia the real dividing line is between pragmatists and idle oaks russia is not a threat to the united states russian elite wants to be friends with the united states i would say almost desperately. and you know reset was a prick made to move since russia is not a for have threat why waste so much money trying to limit its potential and basically it's coming to an end because the wait a year of obama's administration it was getting more and more ideological i think the war in the via was ideal what you call it didn't bring any fruit to assume that this needs obviously there is even there is going to be probably one more forced out of their resume in egypt so that is going to be more what i wanted to colleagues i know you. disagree completely i think russia is a huge threat to the united states not to the united states or the united states

citizens security wise secure no it's security wise it's no threat to the united states it's a threat to the uni polar vision of the western uni polar vision of the world it's a threat to us in germany it's a threat to the us being able to exert political military economic influence in different areas of the world that's the threat that russia presents to the united states and russia is in that case the biggest threat to the united states in the world china has the capability but not the political will it's part of their nature as an elite they're all engineers within a pullet bureau they don't they don't they don't have that aggressive combative attitude russia has some semblance of the ability. increasing after having faded but they have the political will where no other country in the world has been reading my notes multi-polar world if you think russia is being vindicated slowly but surely that that's the path that the world should take because when you look at

major foreign policy initiatives the united states they're always backfiring there's not one exception of a success in the last ten years. my view on international development is actually much more gloomy both for russians for the united states because we we can talk about hegemony which is all we're basically we can talk about multi-polar e t which you know it's accepted by everybody including co bob i've been a station know you use the united nations when you need them and you don't need it you do steal it you use it you you without. russian veto. in about libya i would say anybody would try it because iraq everybody learns lessons but anyway it doesn't matter because developing this absolutely unpredictable. yes exactly united states. gets more of damage because united states is much more active but even for russia i

think the major major point to you we can see. articles oh it's absolutely impossible to understand what's happening let's be cautious and that's he blaming states for you know want to give you the last word in the program how we could see mr obama and mr putin meet after all of the things that are said about putin well i think that on the russian side there will still be a hand outstretched because as i told you the russian elite wants to east wants to be friends with the americans the problem is that it was not accepted back in the ninety's and even now and the whole conflict inside the russian and what we see now in the media you know with ace and time again needs good deals and other things this is basically a fight of two groups within the russian elite one group says do everything that they want. fascinating discussion thank you very much all right we have run out of time only thank my guests here in the studio and thank the viewer for watching us

here are t c n x aman remember. more news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. trying to cope for a shelter all day. could be the ever often. left something to live.

so. precious children. in a home moms project shoulders. leave it to. on our to. please. her.