more interested in the bottom line and a political agenda rather than reporting on. evidence for the war against donald trump is really at the expense of real journalists. who will come to sophie and co i'm so not say they were a scam this syrian conflict escalating is getting higher as other stand offs around the world between major players become more complex leaders avoid confrontation where interests collide well we talk to military strategist and adviser to presidents ole over the world edward. what's next in the civil war in syria is such a resource straining relations and threatening to escalate the conflict broke

meanwhile in the asia pacific no shots are being fired but the guns are ready. threat of another world war continued to trigger happy decision makers and prop up the pacifists global powers resolve conflicts without getting into one themselves and will peace last in the twenty first century. military strategists advisor to presidents and ministers all over the world edward lu it's great to have you back on our show again welcome back so mr loopback i'm going to start with the united states and syria the u.s. is finding itself deeper and deeper in a syrian conflict sending more troops warning of more attacks shooting non-government jets bombing it's forcing successor in the new american is to new american strategy going to get the country into a war with the other powers involved in syria what do you think. which are the powers when they're in iran there are there is iran there is russia

there's terakhir there are saudi arabia there are all this you know the arab states and iran. right the saudi so days are very interested in the conflict but there are no saudi troops or so in the aircraft the turks have only sent in some troops of the border area to prevent the kurds the kurds. basically to try and stop the kurds a limit the russian involvement is primarily airpower. and. the iranians are present by sending militia it's mainly of shit from afghanistan and pakistan even some india even shia militias they command now of these players saudi is absent the iranians even drunk when they're drunk they remember that they are no military power

they run the iranians have only ever fought one enemy which is iraq and they lost so these revolutionary guards are good for parades they're not fighters they cannot survive any kind of combat with american forces of any sort even very small combat so what we have here is russian airpower. and russian support for and sent now the anomaly americans don't share the russian test for us out the russians obviously find the russian government finds assad delicious the americans don't think he smells very good are they going to go all the conflict or not do you think there's a chance that this well ours could actually clash first of all. they are present in support of the kurds what the americans are doing in syria is actually not to.

directly attack assad's regime. but they are there to support the kurds and their support in the kurds primarily it against turkey actually which is a nato ally for the time being and still isn't made to allah so the american action is rather limited is to support kurds who are only active in a small part of syria you know the white house actually says it has evidence that assad regime is preparing for another a chemical attack it hasn't been really approved yet that us out was behind the previous attack is this a prelude to another tomahawk missile strike. well the previous attack was not an attack downed with. you know bird jummy mineral water it was an attack then with chemical weapons every single element present there you know

the un whatever they they identified the use of nerve gas rather traditional nerve gas nostalgic nerve gas from the second world war sadly in dallas actually. that was confirmed now there's obviously a only some internal. rumor or intelligence somebody saying to somebody or let's use some more obviously there is no on drawing action there is no evidence of chemical action however the american warning is issued because in this very confused situation the americans have taken a kind of minimal position which is if the as a regime uses gas they intervene they have

a prejudice against gas they don't intervene when the us and regime drops normal high explosive bombs or cheap barrel bombs they don't intervene when they do other things but they have a prejudice against gas for some reason really they don't like gas well the u.s. has tried all kinds of approaches in syria saying that assad must go then saying his removal isn't already arming rebels they're not arming them then arming them again know what's on the ground for us and now what's on the ground this washington have a clear idea what it wants to achieve in syria. neither the trampling and this ration or it's any moves want to send an american army to syria. the american involvement in the muslim world is already too large. too much is being done in afghanistan in iraq there's no appetite for sending an army to syria that's

very clear very clear in the russian policy appears to be to try and preserve the assad regime as long as possible and that the you know the able to do it to a degree the americans do not have a policy of sending an army to remove the answer the same so this thing can continue for god knows how long. you know it's it's not it's a crisis that in a way is simply a very violent expression of a more general crisis which is present for out of the muslim world then no country in the muslim world is in a state of political equality or tell us something in your opinion does america really care that much about assad and the fate of his government and therefore syria as a whole or is it really all about iran and iran presence in syria for them i mean the white house of course says it's all about this law mixtape but which one of the

two do you think is the most important thing for us the u.s. as for iran's the obama administration. the goal sate of the nuclear agreement and was very optimistic to be able to proceed from the nuclear agreement to improve relations with iran the iranians then want that and that's why immediately after signing the nuclear agreement they sent little boats in the president of to stratton big american ships of course nothing happens the iranians are talkers they're not duras if they tried to do they of course would fail so the americans are not exactly obsessed with iranian military power in syria and the country that is interested in that is israel and every time the iranians send some iranian general within fifty kilometers of these early border to try outs a missile the israelis kill him and they are perfectly able and willing

capable of killing them or if they approach again as they've done several times in specific incidents. but the americans do not have a policy of fighting a war with iran they don't have a policy of becoming friends with iran which was the previous obama administration but there's no war plan. you know isis is shrinking under pressure from all sides in syria and iraq but at the same time it's popping up in other places like philippines and indonesia and afghanistan as a go to leave beyond the syrian operation is it even possible to eradicate it the doubt this had the territorial existence in iraq and which of course the ancient capital of jihadism going back to be a century that. they captured mosul their territory but they

are not primarily a territorial movement there are global boom and wherever muslims are they sat with them here they call must muslims of course go about their business them up a sickly peaceful but they are busy get taxi drivers or whatever they are but the ones who are listening to these on the call will hear a dialogue there was somebody who is doctrine by the way is identical to a deduction which is the state religion of god tad and saudi arabia the islam of given time via and it is identical to the doctrine of al qaida and a dentist called to the doctor and a book koran in all the rest of it so yes you will not see the end of violence just because they lose that we're going to take a short break right now when we're back we'll continue talking to us military strategist and government advisor at lubeck about u.s.

foreign policy in the pacific and other parts of the world stage. all right armstrong callie move along i'm neal hoping. we're going to be your host spin the tree thousand and seventy confederations cup right here in russia we're going to be visiting the host cities or sochi has done some creatures good in moscow going to great mental conclude pools also posting something pretty much to bring every topic the fans need to know about the head of the match so don't forget to join us on field it's going to be full and full of you know.

who she is old enough to post efficient dolphins. the law. school. told me. a little bit of both of those of you that you. just. have to leave the last the few that really. took a barbecue or not that i. was i don't know that my father before the cell phone was a cell phone so. but he investigate the police officers behavior as well. i'll take drugs in the west end up in presence here. calling people as you close.

welcome back we're discussing u.s. foreign policy in different parts of the world with military strategist and foreign policy advisor at outlook currently you have sat the best strategy for the u.s. in syria is not to take sides but instead false or whoever's losing so that nobody wins but how is a long war in syria and washington's interests i mean their war is causing

instability in the region alone might have their man rely on a prize how's that beneficial to america my recommendation related to the beginning of the story not to what happened later the beginning of the story is that there was a fight between the assad regime strategically aligned with iran therefore not only me not ally or friends or even neutral in regard to nine states but them enemy entity and out qaeda. the fight starts between assad regime and al qaeda as it was namely. whatever you want to call him wahhabi is the followers of even tummy tuck firies any name you want to give them but the five was between violent extremists and you merrick and muslims and the

anti american iranian assad regime so they have told us they've had only enemies in syria at the beginning in that fight united states had to be neutral american policy is as been a rather minimalist policy it is remains a minimalist policy so i think russian policy is more interesting because russian policy appears to want to secure a kind of mediterranean guard them a letter carrier from musketeer down to. doctors that along this coast where there is a russian naval base a russian air base and the idea of russia having a mediterranean garden there is not something intolerable to the world unfortunately it involves supporting us and as is really bad's yeah i think russia doesn't support assad personally i think russia supports the fischel

damascus and if it came down to it who knows maybe russia could trade assad for someone else from official damascus. i think for russia having a libya as an example of someone who is overthrown and having that disarray in the country and having that i would say was also a dictator but after he got shot he got hanged everything went downhill from there i think those two examples were very vivid for russia because russia is much closer to those countries the united states it prefers to support the official damascus rather than undefined rebels. who we don't really know what they wrote leave the country to the idea i was right listen the the idea that overthrowing dictators is is a mistake is a very sensible idea doesn't surprise i mean i'm not particularly. you know bothered by this i testified before the us senate against the war in iraq or in two

thousand and three i did say that if you remove saddam hussein you get and the key civil war and not democracy i was. not only ali by the way but the second should be friends mr gates was a ganster of the attack on the daffy in libya believing the americans actually listened to the talents and the talents said that if you remove gadhafi you don't get democracy you get our hundred tribes fighting each other for ever and that's what we have in libya so in other words where we have discovered between moscow and washington we have learned something in the muslim world you either have the faith to ship or anarchy therefore i don't think there is any interest in the movie any more dictators the problem is syria is that makes it

hard hard to be critical you told me back in two thousand and eleven that real politics is in the pacific and not in the middle east and it's now twenty seventeen and it's been six years since the war in syria broke out question u.s. led coalition of more than a dozen countries are fighting isis there to still stick to their opinion that the middle east is not that significant. listen we have a total of we have a few thousand troops which are doing mainly training and support a few thousand troops we have an air base in the tower ironically with aircraft but nothing compared to what we have in a pacific in the pacific we have the gauge mint of the u.s. navy. the u.s. army is not engaged in these wars they have a few thousand soldiers but that's all. they u.s.

air force is not engaged in these wars they have a few aircraft but the u.s. navy is very largely engaged in the pacific there they're active moving both in the north pacific between japan and korea and in the south in the in the western pacific south china sea all the way through and so the if you look at where american action is it's about ninety percent nine zero percent in the pacific but the difference in the percentage is that there is a question of pushing pushing and counter pushing as opposed to shooting is chewed that the small american presence in the middle east involves shooting but it is very small indeed right now the the chairman of joint chiefs is actually in afghanistan and they're planning to send four thousand more troops there were many

more dead than there reduced and they want to send four thousand in a probably hopeless effort but four thousand troops and four thousand is fewer than there are americans aboard a single aircraft carrier i get your point so in the pacific with no signs of the crisis or on the south china sea resolving how serious can it get says both china and the u.s. are dependent on each other for a trade a military standoff can be serious so can either party for two years force no there's no question of force it's called pushing pushing and counter pushing at the present moment as we speak the chinese government is still in the chorus of putting pressure on north korea. when she just plain came to flour the tramp said to him no more talk no more negotiations no more sick spout talk

eighteen power talks or other diplomatic nonsense you know squeeze the north koreans until they really do change a thing and as you know at that time when they met the north koreans were getting ready for a nuclear test number five they stopped they didn't do and then you put that at the present moment china is putting an effort to squeeze north korea i was there last week actually at the border than down that the border between china and north korea and every businessman in down down is complaining bitterly that suddenly everything stopped so at this moment therefore the ch as the champion mr asian made a very clear saying we are holding on so we are waiting on the south china sea issue because you are making a real effort in north korea if they don't succeed in north korea then it will be.

this out chinese see will be prominent but this is a long time in gauge bent of two countries that have complicated relations between them in regard to salvage and a lot of other relations which have nothing to do with strangers and also there are other things going on in china which are of great interest to the united states and one of them is a very definite increase in the rule of law very definite increase in the room though these days when the chinese police arrest you they take in front of a judge judges don't just say ok five years go away they now ask questions and some janet chinese society is changing so took soon after the election of donald trump you wrote an article in foreign policy that you don't see the president's foreign policy as reckless or radical how do you see it now is it full of balance and common sounds really other hand. i was hoping you would raise that

because in that article i wrote that trump really wanted to make an agreement with with putin the russian government really want to make an agreement and the agreement was to resolve the ongoing ukraine issue to come to a joint policy on syria joint policy on syria arizona listen the ukraine i don't yet know if there yet wrote that he had a lot of very simple idea he had when i wrote the article the simple idea was let's meet friends let's sit down let's work it out and they got nothing from the russian side nothing at all there was no response and there was no offer of any comment and when i went and asked i said how come you're not doing it and saying.