say turkey and the kurdish forces. ok so to get a little bit deeper into this i'm happy to say that our. middle east expert joins us live on the program and you very welcome to the program how do you see this playing out as our correspondent just described the u.s. is stuck it seems to me in a rock and a hard place but is it one of their own making. will the united states and turkey do have a very contradicting relations across the past two terms of the presidents of the united states starting with barack obama who used to say that is the indispensable ally in the middle east but if you look at the policies on the ground you would understand that there is a kind of more divergence of interest on the ground especially when it comes to syria and the middle east in general so they noninterventionist policy on the

barack obama was a kind of a trap to cave that it's going to be more embroiled in the quiet my out of syria and later on when donald trump came into power and tried to. mend these kind of relations he just follow the footsteps of his predecessor donald trump when it comes to turkey and he continued with the support of the y.p. g. now both presidents they do claim that they are supporting the kurdish militias for the pretext of fighting terrorism and and they are the only. the only fighting groups on the ground that is able to fly dash and according to them they say they did but for turkey this is an existing szell threat that they cannot abandon easily they do believe that the y.p. is still an offshoot of the p.k. that is that terrorists are going to. and that would pose

a major carrot to the national security what do you say about washington bearing that in mind can america vera for really continue to stay on the right side of both turkey and the kurds. i don't think so i think this kind of a conflicting standpoints of washington will lead eventually to a complete departure of turkey from the all of the nato and the united states and we'll get a lead more to closer relationship with iran from the one hand from with russia from the other hand from central asia and asia from the other hand because what washington is doing is a complete disregarding of turkey's national interest and do you political interest in the region that something uncle or not easily access ok isel as you know is no longer a military force there are new conflicts do seem to be emerging that the picture is

widening you've got turkey the kurds syria israel all involved in one way or another could this be the beginning of a larger scale war in the middle east or at least a conflict not against a terror group. where you know the quagmire of syria was started with a kind of proxy war then it moved to more involvement of these regional and international powers now i think that the stand off is going to difficult and difficult particularly between the united states and turkey basically when it comes to the kurds in member now the afrin operation it seems that with the green light of the russians the turkey has the power to go ahead with the operation the ongoing though it's so far it's difficult and it seems that the kurdish militias did have. heavy work in the raid there the guerrilla fighters so the fight is not

going so easy though ankara is still determined to go ahead with this operation now the big elephant in the room is members and that's why they invited states is still on the ground they do have troops and in that case if they do not withdraw troops and advisers from this region then ankara says repeatedly the president here threatens that he's going to go ahead with this operation in member because they don't want any why p.d. and the west of the route to sever and in case this happens i think there will be a kind of militaristic and that could lead to more tension if not a military standoff between the united states and korea that could lead to a major escalation to more wars on the ground when the russia iran are on the same page with the turks that will lead to

a more alinea ating and more isolating of the united states yeah big ramifications from. middle east expert always good to get your take we appreciate it. the foreign minister of the netherlands has admitted that he lied about hearing love in europe in talking up visions to reform the soviet union the claims were made about the russian president in twenty six teen well r.t. singer joins me now to discuss more serious so here we have at the top diplomat of one country lied about meeting the president of another what's the background to all this. well when the dutch foreign minister was campaigning two years ago he said that he overheard president putin outlining his plan to unify russia ukraine belarus the baltic states and kazakhstan as a fingal country back in two thousand and six at some sort of business gathering but this has been

a general talking point when it comes to russia that putin is supposedly trying to bring back the soviet union however the foreign minister was working for shell at the time but his story was questioned when it was discovered that despite being part of the shell delegation he wasn't at the two thousand and six meeting and not only that he wasn't even in russia at the time but when he was confronted about this he said that he was a lying to protect a source but then he also said he regretted lying obviously this isn't the first instance of fake news regarding russia there have been rumors floating around that russia influenced the breadth of vote and then there's also been president micron various attacks against russia and of course from various social media giants as well and they've all alleged russian meddling in some shape or form but in the end they've admitted that there's been no evidence whatsoever to substantiate any of their claims so it seems that in looking for news about russia they're actually creating a fake news about russia life from america's capital city this hour assume your account thank you. american tycoon george soros is pledging

huff a million pounds to an empty breaks a term pain group despite soros being accused of meddling in british politics he ses he's proud to buck the calls i'm a proud supporter of best foot britain a group that wants britain to remain a member of the european union i consider brics it's a tragic mistake. well soros anish lee invested four hundred thousand pounds in a campaign called the best for britain in the hope of drumming up support for a second referendum on the u.k. status in the e.u. a wave of criticism followed but the investor responded by donating one hundred thousand pounds more well a sociology professor from kent university in the u.k. claimed he overheard soros and his associates bragging about their meddling in politics in numerous countries and we can now in fact speak to the man who say he

heard the conversation frank for ready frank thanks for taking the time we appreciate your company this hour can you tell us just briefly what did you hear and under what circumstances this was a few years ago i was in the hungary talking to one of the foundations that the sorest people run and these are really it's a meeting of young people from all over the world who are seen as like the missionaries of because of the sorest mandation so there are people there from the ukraine people there from holland sweden literally all over the world and afterwards after the conference there was a dinner for the speakers which was attended by so much a leader is so different n.g.o.s that the source foundations run from different countries so in my lunch table there were people who from sweden from hungary from all over the place and of course the conversation they were going on

about right how much influence they've been able to exercise over events in the arab spring in cairo they were very proud of the role game played in tunisia during the revolt there he went on about the ukraine how much impact they were able to make on some of the demonstrators at the time and then finally they ended up by being a little faggot they're all. critical and played a very important role in the case of libya and the overthrow of the gadhafi regime and i kind of regarded the conversation as you know a bit of boston you know when people get around a table be off the shore and indicate how influential be it were and i try to stay out of the conversation because a little bit uneasy being in the middle of this and what happened in the end was that this lady who runs one of the socialist and yours in hungary a look at me and says well you're

a guest here you've been listening to us what do you think your work and i kind of it has it in fashion says well actually i'm not really sure if it's a good thing for people for foreigners to intervene in yet it's like i just want to move on to the to the u.k. part of it what you're saying is very interesting of course but in terms of george soros alleging to be meddling in british politics people have invested of course in in various campaigns do you think that he is affecting it in a negative way i'm not really sure i i really don't know whether this will have an impact i what i object to is the idea that somehow. a rich oligarch who has not a citizen of british society just comes in and gives to people can use your sense to disrupt and electoral process which he's going to do with you have to remember that millions and millions of people would have for bricks that and these are

citizens of british society and somehow dare right to walk in in line with very nature and is now being undermined by disperse and this billionaire coming into his side i think that's a little bit morally wrong ok thanks very much for your take this over and coming on the program frank furedi professor of sociology at the university of kent. a new controversial law in poland is causing a stir in israel. for the sure right. we have a great team but we need to strengthen it before the free world. to keep it to the back. in one thousand nine hundred two that must qualify for the european championships at the very last moment no one believed in us but we won and i'm hoping to bring some of that waving spirit to the.

recently i had a lot of practice so i can guarantee you that peter schmeichel will be the best since my last. thousand zero zero zero zero. left left left more or less ok. joining me every thursday on the alex simon chill and i'll be speaking to guests of the world of politics sports business i'm showbusiness i'll see them. come back to the program an advisor to the polish president has come under fire for what some are calling m t is really comments he was defending

a new law that prohibits polish people from being held responsible for the crimes of the nazi regime against the jews. in israel comes from the feeling of shame and the passivity of the holocaust. the new law also makes it illegal to refer to nutsy death camps situated in the country as polish ones and those violating the law could face severe punishment of up to three years in jail the polish president's advisor went even further defending the legislation the religion of the holocaust has become a symbolic shield for that country which is used by israel to create for itself a special position in many places in the world a shield which is meant to protect israel against any criticism many jews in gauged in denunciation collaboration during the war i think israel has still not work to throw more than three million jewish people lived in poland before the second world

war most of them were killed during the conflict in the ice which birkenau camp which was built in poland during the nazi occupation witnessed around the deaths of one million jews to discuss this more in some detail i'm joined by mark sure mark is among other things a columnist for newsweek magazine mark hello to you what do you make of the comments by the polish president's advisor first of all. well very problematic to say the least i mean you talk about the jews being too passive i mean what was the what was the war sore uprising the ghetto uprising that the jews took part in or organized in one thousand nine hundred three i mean look what came out after the slaughter was a whole wave of anti-semitism in poland that we haven't seen for many years since one thousand nine hundred six and the law has sort of unleashed the polls to sort of feel free to do it now the problem with the law is not so much the fact it says you can't say polish death camps but the fact the law says you cannot diminish the

role of the nazis which means that if you say that the poles had some part of it you are violating the law and by all accounts while the nazis were the ones who are ninety percent responsible for the holocaust and what happened in poland clearly the poles who were involved in the cases where the poles were part of the part of the problem and so it's a real problem of course the question of freedom of speech as well freedom of people to study the holocaust to talk about the holocaust and not to mention the fact that thousands and thousands of israelis go every year to visit many of them high schoolers and the question is when their guides go to go to poland excuse me they do they have to be afraid to speak the truth and speak of what went on a moment look i had great uncles who were made it through the holocaust somehow return to that town in poland fischbach and were killed by the poles when they came back in one thousand nine hundred six so clearly the poles are not and that free of any sort of guilt on the other hand no not the poles and not the ones who are sponsible clear the nazis were the ones who are ninety percent responsible so you

have to look at it from a whole picture do you think we're going to see some repercussions from poland both for the law the comments coming from it's official it's are going to be a reaction to this. well it's certainly been reaction in israel there's been talk about stopping all of the visits by israeli high school is to poland that brings in a great deal of tourist money clearly clearly look what's happened is the polish government has moved so far of the right in the last couple. two years since a new government has taken hold that this is sort of been like a symbol and i think this will have an effect on poles relations with the western europe at this point i mean it's part of a series of actions that the polish government has taken their member of the e.u. and yet they're testing the new and its ability to accept a much more nationalistic government in poland just finally. with nationalism yet. the term positivity what was your reaction to that when you

heard the visor to the president talking about the jews positivity. look clearly you know some of the images of the holocaust until nine hundred sixty two in the trial of i when there was this sort of feeling that the jews very passive and they were not they didn't do anything when the trial of eichmann came out it became clear the jews were impassive yet somewhat passive most of them were met with overwhelming force some four back they were jewish partisans and they were jewish fighters and the idea of passivity is you know of course it's the opposite of israel you know here in israel oh we are signed and then israel is the idea that we're no longer be passive thank you very much for your time this are mark schulman columnist for newsweek magazine. it's all the news for you in thirty minutes this is our t. .

shirt not said donald trump has locked horns with his own intelligence and law enforcement how damaging can the rift between the white house and the american intelligence get well i asked him a decade ca veteran groff. political cycle with the investigation of president putting the. spotlight but his national. politics. and will therefore radically change the situation in the country. we're all from out larsen former cia veteran who served as moscow section chief

among other politicians welcome to the show it's really great to have you with us. now wealth of the american intelligence community has been accused of being politicized many times in a bush sheriffs' to politicians use it to justify iraq now agencies are again the world in a political scandal i know you pride yourself on your colleagues for being patry otic nonpolitical but can you really be about politics in this line of work i mean that sounds kind of like fairytale almost. i think it's a standard you have to strive for have been a lifelong political independent for that reason that you outlined that it's crucial for intelligence officers to be independent and objective and serve the country not just the president and the government but we are also all citizens you know the intel they were as our taxpayer funded they have no private sector competition appointments there are made by politicians how can all that not be

politicized. actually the in the intelligence profession all of our officers are career professionals we spend our entire career inside the agency in my case i was undercover for my twenty three years in cia living abroad for most of those years and frankly i really felt it was not that difficult to me maintain my impartiality and i think you have to do that whether you're collecting information or analyzing it or disseminating it which is this initial mission of intelligence you have to maintain an ability to tell your policymakers the truth in other words speak truth to power. is that right for an intelligence professional to design for a high political office for instance the media in the us are saying that director of the cia might compel maybe replacing secretary of state rex tillerson singh staring too much into political territory. there's always

a healthy discussion about the idea of particularly former intelligence professionals getting involved in politics i personally don't agree with that as a principle for the same reason for military officers getting involved in politics but my pump a.o. was a representative who and often are cia directors or they are political appointees pointy and he's in a long line of cia directors who are political appointees and that that is the way our system operates just like many of our ambassadors overseas are part of a line politically always with the president so i don't find that worrisome or disturbing i think it's much more important that the the ranks of the intelligence officers remain professionalized how much freedom the cia have and decisions and when for instance bush administration ran torture prisons and then obama came in and closed them that the agency has the power to decide for itself whether you need

things like that and whether it's ethical to use them. that's a great question a sophia i feel the intelligence community has a good set of guidelines it starts with a given set of authorities we have in other words we can conduct certain activities are we call our mission without special authority for example the mission of espionage is a core intelligence mission of all intelligence services we can do that without seeking approval when we do something like interrogation or enhanced interrogation or have prisons that requires actually what we call a covert action finding that it requires a a finding from our department of justice that we can do that ik to vittie as well as very strict legal guidelines that are laid out in writing for the agency to follow and at the times when we we run afoul of that when we when we are accused of crossing the line we're held accountable by whatever standard has been laid out by our department of justice and our other authorities that are above us you know the

involvement on government agencies in this presidential election some starting from the f.b.i. role in the clinton e-mails now that trump investigation and estimating both candidates and being quite public about it. it's unprecedented unprecedented in that i mean why has the intelligence community taken on this reasonable and political role this time around. i agree with you actually i find it very regrettable very concerned about the politicization of intelligence i do agree it's happening to some extent i think the f.b.i. and the cia are still very reliable organizations that that are following their their guidelines i still have complete trust and confidence in the organizations but you're right there's the questions do arise and it's because of the highly politicized nature of our domestic politics right now between the republicans and democrats and between those who support the president those who don't support the

president so i agree it's a very concerning time and i think it's going to be a time when we in a way redefine our limits you know what is the proper role of the cia and the f.b.i. in the in our domestic affairs and we've learned in our history from the past that we should stay out of american politics. and the house intelligence committee has released a republican newness report which contains allegations that f.b.i. misled the judge in obtaining permission to spy on trump's presidential campaign this report has already been branded inaccurate is it part of the blame game or is there some substance to this. personally i think it's the blame game that's my personal view the new paper in my view is a republican version of cherry picking the facts as they choose to present them and now i understand there's another version circulating the democratic version i frankly find that whole process to be regrown also not something i'm proud of as an

american i'd prefer to see both parties sit down this and discuss these things not in the public eye without declassifying to releasing classified information i think all of that is not something as an american citizen that i would dorsey or say is a good thing especially with trump's election things haven't been like they used to be before like from what i understand about the american system the nation's foreign policy is largely decided in the white house and the state department and then there's a congress in the senate and they're more preoccupied with internal matters this time congress is so active in pushing its foreign policy vision on the president why. well i think that's true generally sophia and of course we also have the national security council and unlike russia and some other countries china and others that have a more continuity in foreign policy work and making we don't do largely through the

political nature of our system we run in for a year cycles a lot a large part of that which is consumed with electioneering and campaigning and i think that's a weakness of our system i still of course believe in the representative government idea that we that we sacrifice this continuity of stability in our policy making but it is it is a vulnerability or a weakness and you can really see it right now because. largely because we are dealing with unprecedented issues that we've never had that considered we've never had such an aggressive intelligence attack if you will on the american democratic institutions and our and our election process that we just had in the previous election that has caused a great deal of this i think a soul searching inside the u.s. so what is coming out of the issue the trump russia story you said yourself there's no hard evidence yet yet of trump straight on collision with russia so why does the public believe it to be a fact and the media in america reports it as

a fact also. i hope the american people or the media don't believe it is a fact philthy i i i see it as the facts are clear that for whatever reason and i question why the russian intelligence services. attacked our system so aggressively but i think that is a fact i don't i don't think that's the nihil the question then is what did that do and what impact that have on the results of the election and for what reason did russian intelligence conduct that activity i don't have the answers to those questions and i won't speculate because i think that would be irresponsible i think we have to determine what happened and then decide what happened on the basis of the evidence and i don't think we're there yet that's his that's the thing i don't know that anyone has presented the evidence and then the facts have been presented

to the public by intelligence agencies where the public has been misled intentionally or not by its intelligence committee many times like i'm thinking w m d's in iraq for instance since the consequences of that are still felt fifteen years or so while a whole hearted face in what the intelligence is telling them about russia now especially what you're saying it's a fact but every time russia asks to show them the facts they they they are unable to provide them occur just like with iraq i think that's a legitimate i think that's a legitimate accusation sofi to the extent that it puts pressure on the u.s. intelligence community to do something it's hard to do which is to present the if you will the secret facts or the story i don't even know frankly the secret story because i don't have a reason need to know that as a retired cia officer however if they do present the facts there's

a risk of compromising what we call sources and our methods which would of course not not be good so the question is how much evidence should be provided to the american people i'm personally and i stress this is my personal view an advocate of declassifying as much information as possible and presenting it to the american people and to present it. to the russian government i think we really need to initiate a process that we negotiate an end to this kind of aggressive cyber hacking and interference in our one another's domestic affairs if president putin believes the u.s. is interfering in russian domestic affairs or internal affairs it's not a good approach to interfere in our affairs in order to get us to stop doing it so i think it's in the interest of both sides a sit down and and talk this over and try to avoid a repetition of what happened in two thousand and sixteen in the future. ok let's take a short break right now and when we're back we'll continue talking to cia veteran

ralph larson discover a spy agencies position and it's today's wall tension. when washington's political elites chatter endlessly about memos the u.s. continues to deepen its role in the syrian proxy war of course there is no public debate about this.