it's a safe spot mics. got them on whenever somebody has the money. and time is of a hard this credit of the hour right here on its that's as far as. you know who are quite. right so let's fast forward ten years is just say for argument's sake china is the biggest economy by then some people are saying that it will be what will that mean that in terms of power. it will be gone. at they will be buried or its costs are buried by a lot about competitor. i think in part what about competitors to china who all that the moment who's the biggest threats to the nation in terms of trade. partner with germany in terms of maybe the united states in terms of its different kind of. west germany was there. and what

about emerging nations what about countries like thailand indonesia why did they fare in all of this do you see those countries being the new china in say thirty forty years time when i look back have a lot of natural resources from a lot of that is wrong with. that is there a straight talk going to china somebody might come for the child but i doubt john is that they have many competitors that are twenty or thirty years ago it's just life. and you know it is they stand on the road very few for better and there's. very few going ok let's talk about the threats to china though on a domestic level what do you think poses the biggest threat to they need to sort out their home economy issues in order to move forward and do you see a slow landing coming anytime soon a some off putting for china. but it's all fair when it's all

a set back in america the. impression you know it's no war because we have very human rights where you are never became an extremely successful country but what if the problem is that a thing worse than. before the problem of a staggering or a problem that they have they don't solve the problem of time. ok so moving on to a slightly different topic that china is now ahead in terms of trade not even talking about just now but not something you know about in gold just is so just quickly what do you make of the fact that the russia is now the biggest bio of gold supposed china in the last decade with gold purchases what's your opinion on that. story after this call i'm very volatile shower of russia has been started investing in russia surprised me that there are

a lot of go. the way of. jim thank you very much indeed a high p. phil a little bit better at the house. i think thank you very much indeed if your time today thank you. now as i was just saying russia has become the biggest gold by all of the decade and that's according to the i.m.f. data so we have right now of very golden go i'm pleased to say. as we get ahead you tell me now i want to know how much has russia bought into russia. the whole world and even though as you just mentioned yeah china over the past decade russia added five hundred seventy tons of the yellow metal to be more vivid that march of gold is almost always as much as three five pages of liberty here are you really like can you i can but i'll be here so valid watching

gold does that make russia some kind of champion in terms of money really not actually for you add the plays of the number one holder of gold is the u.s. asset has eight times more of the yellow metal than russia and that's followed by germany italy france china and switzerland right ok so a long way to go that isn't really quite a big difference and you know i want to and just thinking so this is pretty clever of us really because. you know we're in these times of quantity of easing you know stimulus aggressive measures they're doing right now print money per me why bawn up signs of all solid gold is a good but real assets and imagine the amount of the their reserves whole held in gold amount to seventy percent and that's while russia keeps only nine and a half percent of its reserves in bullion the difference very big difference and that's exactly what russia wants to change analysts say that russia now is in the gold rush because it wants to hedge against the results of all this and less

quantify easing by major economists so experts explain. it does make sense because a significant portion of russia's reserves are concentrated in dollars and euros in the world economy and which there is still high volatility and on certainty including with regard to these two currencies there are clearly a lot of risks emanating from both the u.s. and europe i think and this is partly meant to diversify risks for the central bank for russia but also to perhaps try and come up with with one of the potential safe havens if you will. ok so i'm just thinking that's all free well but wouldn't russia be better off spending this money domestically i'm thinking infrastructure i'm thinking rose i think you social

services here is a fabulous bargain my personal view but i was thinking united makes sense to me unfortunately it's analysts i've spoken to that until russia one learns to spend money through the economy. save for a to accumulate excess of reserves and store them in because they've coffers right well we'll leave it there touch and i pull a favor thank you very much indeed all right then we'll move on we're going to talk about rush's gaffe a major gas problem it's holding off it's shopman gas project for at least seven years i guess from its talking to find a new partner to explore the arctic region and will now concentrate on other projects for the time being. the russian bear and u.s. beef pork and turkey imports coming into effect this month is likely to last for a long time that's according to russia's consumer safety watchdog and away now the head of the watchdog so that the products fell to show that they were free of the

grove stimulant recto per minute which is a gross stimulant used to make meat leave and it's believed to cause health problems to humans. are going to stay with russia and we're going to check out the markets right now let's have a look and see what happens with the x.'s here in moscow it was indeed a red day it's not really a brilliant start to the week as you can see just who are half of the r.t.s. around the quarter but my so it's just i want to mention there was some gamers though we did have m.t.s. rosner last telecom scuse me and ross nat they did rather well so i did better than the market will move on to see who got the russian ruble it see what. they were going to hire against the u.s. dollar and it's lower against the common currency in monday's session the european stocks they had a mixed day of it today. as you can see just continue in the previous week's retreat from multi month pinks and dragged down by a sharp selloff in danish farmer group novo nordisk it's

a big story today of its key drugs suffered a regulatory approval setback and that story really dominated through the european session energy of minus stocks were hit by falling commodity prices while continued political turbulence in italy and spain weighed on banks and also their national indices as well as get on to wall street see what happened there they continued to edge lower you can see we've got to cold lines this monday and it's the energies and the material sectors really leading the declines which have advanced around six percent on average this year though as far as wall street is concerned it's been doing a six week rally so that is indeed the markets for today not all from us here are to get an interview with russia's ambassador to the un vitaly churkin don't go away. led mission free cretaceous free. for charges free

arrangement free. three stooges free. cold free floating video for your media project free media. see a story. you think you understand it and then something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything is. welcome to the big picture.

plumes.

it's just so. i'm very pleased to introduce russia's envoy to the united nations with only choking back a trick and thank you very much for making yourself available for this interview thank you let me begin with iran russia is about to sit down yet again for talks with five other world powers on iran's nuclear program the negotiations are due at the end of february the u.s. vice president joe biden said that the u.s. was ready for direct negotiations with the with iran do you see it as a breakthrough as a serious push for diplomacy on the part of washington well hopefully and of course we're looking forward to the resumption of the talks of the six. in late february

and we have always welcomed the possibility of direct contacts between the united states and iran unfortunately over the years there's been some back and forth some positive statements on the one side were met by negative statements on the other side this time i understand there has been a strong negative statement from high level from tehran which which was saying that those talks were impossible but the iranians are notoriously difficult to negotiators and of course the subject matter is very complex so on each particular issue there are always very difficult discussions but it is. quite a challenge to make headway but we believe that there has been some ted way on the substance of those discussions that we hope that there is a good point from which the negotiators can proceed with making some progress just speaking more generally when when talking about progress in relations with russia i heard many times the administration officials and members of the obama

administration say well we've got russia quote unquote on board to put more pressure on iran in what context in what way do you see russia on board with the united states on iran our american colleagues of an interesting way of describing the situation they very often to take to do. as as you try to call them in terms of their american positions and others coming over to those positions this is not the case at all this is not the way we see it when we enter into some discussions with the united states and other partners in various situations will try to find a common position so sometimes they move towards us sometimes it's a compromise where we have to do to come together midway this is the way we we sort of find a compromise we are prepared to continue working together within the format of the six even though we make no secret of the fact that we think that some of the things which are being done by some members of the six

a counter productive because in addition to security council sanctions they piled up all sorts of unilateral sanctions which we believe are not necessary and needed as a matter of principle because once we agree to work together once we develop a certain system based on security council resolutions to add anything on top of that is sort of the wrong thing to do in our view this is creating some humanitarian problems in iran which should not be there it's creating some bad blood in the talks with iran which which is not really necessary if they end i mean the u.s. and israel together or separately were about to make the decision to strike iran is there anything that could stop them you know i hope common sense and good reason will stop them because this will be the worst thing to do well first of all the opportunities for for dialogue are there nobody nor member of the six including the united states that the that the iranians have already made the

political decision to develop a nuclear weapon they they accept they say that as far as they know the iranians have not yet made that decision since this decision has not yet been made even according to them certainly there is room for. for diplomatic discussions for diplomacy etc etc a military strike. would certainly make north for the talks with iran possible so every opportunity for political discussions will be lost i agree with those who believe that in fact that would give a great push to those in iran if that strike were to happen who might be advocating building a nuclear bomb so that would be in a rational then generous step to say nothing of the regional questions of a conflict with iran because now we are facing instability in the region spreading from mali libya in the north west africa all the way to iran speaking of mali

how do you assess france's military operation there i believe that the extremists in the north made a pretty bad miscalculation they got carried away and they decided to make a military move to the south heading towards the capital bamako then the government of mali a request of the french to send in the troops and they did it and where we understood were not generations because. of international law it was completely clean clear request of the government because of a clear threat to its security and the like integrity of the country so we supported that in our discussions in the security council and basically everything that which is happening and now the african troops are moved into in support of the french is within the sort of within the context of the resolution of the security council i should say that we do have a little space apart sometimes quite as discussions in the security council this is

not one of those situations this is a situation where people understand the dangers and also have a very frank exchange of views about what needs to be done in order to avoid putting the united nations in. overly precarious or dangerous situation what effect did the arab spring have on the situation that's unfolding in mali right now one question of spring the dramatic events in libya. we're in the course of the crisis of course lots of weapons were brought into libya and there was a lot of there were lots of weapons 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 globe 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 that the radical islamists are where we are 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 end original scenario they had in mind that it would take just a couple of months to topple the assad regime and then 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 syrian opposition groups 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 of on the position groups you said that at some point u.s. officials started started to realize that 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 seeing 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 if 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 cd news is more diplomatic support we were the only ones who are trying to work in both with the government on 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 mind a 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 than 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 and which. for the destruction of government structures but on the basis of that but on the they did they did recognize them however recently there has been a very interesting and important development potentially very important development and this is the statement by the leader of the coalition about which initially were very skeptical and still it 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 of the air we have to take it as a fact and the leader of that opposition mr gottlieb recently made a statement which attracted a lot of attention saying that he is prepared to enter into dialogue with the government he gave some preconditions for that but it's good 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 ball size and to see if they can meet you know if those two thirds give me thank you.

hold it. hold it. live. goodspeed.

whistlin. live. the. good live. just see. it in. front of me.

live . live. live live live. live. live. live. live live live.

live . 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. the document's. keep up a smart look. there is also. another well behind that which is how to influence these situations steer clear of provocations don't answer any question. came into the office

and found banas around the office and lots of strange faces around so i said what's what's happening will somebody please tell me what's going on and they said oh we've come to occupy you believe. possibly they want to do a confrontation possibly they wanted me to ring up the police to have the police come in through the mount but it didn't seem to be a good idea to learn the european way with brussels business. in the uk kristie it's one person one fault but in brussels business it's one euro one fault.