we're in the in the course of the crisis of course a lot of weapons were brought into libya and there was a lot of there were lots of weapons of as it is but still many more weapons were brought into libya during the recent hearings which then secretary of state clinton had in the house of representatives one of the congressman said that they had information that qatar with a wink and nod as he put it from the united states brought in twenty thousand tons of weapons into libya and you know twenty thousand tons you can arm is small terrorist army and so on of course this is exactly what has happened in mali definitely we see a spillover from the libyan crisis to a neighboring country and most likely the spillover has affected other places as well for instance it may well be there are many indications to that effect that the terrorist attack. in the in the jury had something to do i mean close to the libyan border also had some sort of libyan connection in terms of people maybe weapons

terrorists emanating from libya participating in that attack the u.s. now insists that their support for the syrian opposition is non-lethal could it be that the allies of the united states are supporting are providing more weapons at the wink and nod of the world this is definitely the case i'm in the middle of the united states chose to stay clean of the bad guys at some point of the crisis the did realize it seems that things going very wrong you know that various terrorist groups were coming in the radical islamists where we were active there so they were beginning to realize maybe before some of our other western colleagues that things were making a very dangerous turn and that the and original scenario they had in mind that it would take just in a couple of months to topple the assad regime. sort of democracy will triumph was

completely unrealistic and had nothing to do with the with the actual situation on the ground but i mean do notice this is an extremely powerful country definitely with a lot of interest influence on for example such a country as qatar which is reportedly the main source of weapons and support for for armed opposition so if the united states were to want to be a logical and really take a stand they certainly. could could make it clear to those who supply weapons to to to sit in the position group so the fact they simply say that they themselves are not doing that does not does not really absolve them completely from responsibility of what is happening there in terms of the activity on the position groups you said that at some point u.s. officials started started to realize and i think that that is the sense that a lot of people are getting because the administration the obama administration

seems to be a lot more cautious talking about syria now as opposed to a year ago for example they talk about how complex the situation is on the ground have you noticed that change yes yes this is what i'm saying this this changes is a is clear and this change is clear here in our informal discussions in the security council clearly we the one could feel that. their understanding of the situation has become much closer to our understanding of the complexity of. what is going on there so this is what i think makes it important to continue dialogue in that format but there is one disconcerting thing among other things there is a lot of talk about chemical weapons in syria which is which is a valid concern and we have also talked very seriously with the syrian government and they have given us all sorts of assurances that the as they put it. there are

chemical weapons in syria they do not intend to use those weapons but to our liking there is too much talk about that in sort of in the threatening context that should something happen then you know all sorts of things will get done so sometimes it does give us an impression that somebody is looking for a pretext for military intervention to say nothing of the fact that this kind of narrative we fear might provide incentive for the opposition to do something extremely dangerous with chemical weapons what kind of an interference what kind of an international effort would russia support well no no i think what the seating use is more diplomatic support we were the only ones who are trying to work in both with the government and the opposition to bring them to the table to try to form that transitional body which is there for doing in the in the geneva document now. our partners keep saying that years years the geneva document indeed this is the

only rational. document point of departure which is there on the table in order to try to arrange a political dialogue between the government on the opposition why were you reluctant because because you're not there was this document i suppose they still were clinging to their idea of toppling the government and the opposition was was not prepared to go into dialogue with the government our western partners made a mistake and clear all of. the very bad signal when they. sort of recognized this newly formed in the national coalition on the basis of a platform which rejected any dialogue with the government which called for the destruction of the government structures but on the basis of that but from the they did they did recognize them however recently there has been a very interesting and important development potentially very important development and the. the statement by the leader of the coalition about which initially were

very skeptical and still has many problems of this coalition it does not have much of a unity within itself it has some contradictions with other opposition groups but still it's clear we have to take it as a fact and the leader of that opposition mr habib recently made the statement which attracted a lot of attention saying that he is prepared to enter into dialogue with the government here give some preconditions for that but it's get was crucially important for the first time from an important member of the opposition. this statement was delivered so we think that what the international community should do now is to encourage this kind of attitude and of course this statement came after a statement which it was made by president assad early january i think which was criticized by many because it was not going far enough because it was too tough and cetera et cetera maybe much of a criticism of that criticism was was was accurate but he did talk about dialogue

with the opposition as well so in our view the need of the voter all of the international community working from various directions is to try to grab those threads from bull's eyes and to see if they can meet you know if those two thirds can meet thank you. government no longer represents the. people are going to take.

away our.

my juggling job. to do hack work and get caught when lobbyists money and lawmakers are combined together that's where the problem of corruption comes from. i don't know the document's. keep up a smart look. there is also.

another way behind that which is how to influence the institutions to steer clear of provocations don't answer any question. came into the office and found banners hanging around the office and lots of strange faces around someone and said what's what's happening will somebody please tell me what's going on and they said oh we've come to occupy your building. possibly they want to do a confrontation possibly they wanted me to ring up the police have the police come in through the man that. didn't seem to be a good idea to learn the european way with brussels business. in the ocracy it's one person one fold but in brussels business it's one euro one fault.

with. science technology innovation all the least of elements around russia we've got the future covered. speak the language clear cut programs and documentaries in arabic in school here on the t.v. reporting from the world talks about six of the ip interviews intriguing story for you to. see. the arabic to find out more visit our big dog all teeth dog call. it.

i've .