who are involved for example in the two thousand and fifteen paris bombing or in the thousands and bombing so they're viewed as criminals as a choice between whether it is more safe to leave them there and let them disperse to turkey to iraq where they can say radicalized and they get status shamus or bring them back have a trial be released in short order and then restart their activities and western style now if specialized in russian foreign policy a long enough to know that the russians never miss a chance to point out western double standards but i think it goes beyond that it's a legal issue why should these people be isis fighters and their families be dumped in somebody else's territory is developed there's been some outliers truly for example the way of one of the probably end is for the city in paris bombing us said they would rather one seen syria they return to the west because the french have launched air strikes against their family but the majority if given the opportunity would definitely want to come back to their home country even if they know they're

going to face trial even if they know they can almost certainly it's essential prison sentence and russia has definitely invited its own people back to their own consciousness and of course of instances where they've got like the one where they got a six year prison sentence for example and they had to face justice for children they've resettled them through their extended families in their own caucus us to try to train the least a more drop rate a more moderate moderate and respectful manner for the rule of law so i think that there is just an overwhelming domestic pressure not to take in terrorists and extremists in the west as crowding their legal and moral responsibilities to their own citizens to a degree but the choices are are rather awkward and bleak for politicians regularly in the senate but it's not just about politicians i mean this whole war has been framed through all very intensely humanitarian framework i mean western countries for your is how being calling for an intervention on humanitarian grounds and here they are revoking citizenship all for. women who were wedded to isis fighters

without legally establishing that complicity in the crimes how do you think these people should be treated now by the syrians by the assad regime whose record of human rights is another very good as we all know given that their own countries don't think that they deserve a fair trial. i mean i don't think that they have future in syria realistically they're currently living large thousand of them are currently staying under the defenses of the syrian democratic forces which is a kurdish political and militia group and they have very limited resources they they're going to either their choices or rather bleak within syria they either can cross across the border to iraq because this is a weak rule of law over there and reside over there and the iraqis have to undergo even cooperate of about imposing trials on foreign fighters have to land in their territory or they can apply to go to turkey and fly to consular access from there one of the problems bringing the syrians back to the west is the fact that syria is consular access to the western countries but it does have two other countries like russia indonesia levanon and some others but still i think that the western

countries should have a moral responsibility to at least give them i hearing in a western court and then put them in jail as long as they see fit even if it's a life in prison sentence even if they have to make up new counterterrorism laws that would be stricter and more stringent it should be better but i think some people are concerned that they won't get a fair hearing or the sentences won't match the crimes because up until two thousand and fifteen for example european countries did not really designate participation in a foreign terrorist organization as criminal activity they crack down hard on domestic terrorism but not leaving your country going to syria and iraq ever is vague and i suppose now you mentioned before that the syrian conflict is really extraordinary i mean it's in many ways a unique case for many western powers and you had landed for example deep take back one tunnel prisoners who were also accused. terrorism complicity although i think in many cases that is offloading your problem to somebody else why do you think

this overloading practice has been invented for syria or the. justification is very common in the legal community within britain and within france and other countries is that there's such a poor record as i was of what actually happened in syria moderates extremely. often fighting in the same brigades is unclear who was complicit and what kind of crimes occurred and it really we very difficult to try to have a fair trial and there could be a chance in which are the smaller significant chance that the benefit of the doubt could be unfairly given to these has to answer to a lack of information whereas at least in the white house says they've probably been suspect to a great deal of course of interrogation and there's least a perception that having spent time at within the u.s. prison and legal system that they have gotten a star case and more information and just more and more of an ability to kind of ascertain right and wrong guilty and not guilty you mentioned that this line between whatever it the rebels and extremists is extremely blurred them i think

a bit to blame for it lies beyond the west because many western powers went out of that waits you blurred that line and to put all the blame on the syrian government but when they get reconsidered that issue from the point of view of human rights i think what we have here is a new category of essentially human waste people who could be denied all their legal rights based on an administrative decision not the legal decision of a court decision but a decision by some bureaucrats do you see any discussion about that human rights aspect in the british media i don't i don't see very much discussion of that i think that these people are basically viewed within britain pretty early in this nativist climate that we're seeing all across western europe as an reformable so and they and they justify that by saying that they were involved in foreign criminal and terrorist organization and of course there will be some who will kind of turn the tables on russia which i think is in partially a legitimate way to you and say that they're just taking in these people because

they want to create an image of tolerance and because that's where they want to lend legitimacy to some of ramzan kadyrov apparent like a sensible humanitarian schemes and things like that so they tend to argue that it's that their position is not really that different from that of the west and that we all are viewing these people with agree. but some are just more willing to kind of create a p.r. of tolerance understanding than others they would view the russians in the us i will definitely ask you about the russian policy but before we go there if the parents are presumed guilty what about the children because you know i've personally done a lot of reporting on syria but what we're hearing from isis last stronghold dentist in syria now is is truly disturbing even by serious standards because there are lots of pregnant women and lots of very very young children grossly well nourished dobson's dying from hyperthermia and very little if any humanitarian effort on the ground if the british public is concerned about their wives and their

husbands and the isis fighters etc what about the children i think. that there is a lack of attention being considered to the children there just to be part of the family or part of a collective structure and some kind of a. punishment is happening here they don't think is appropriate i think that the children should have access to education measures some other things and perhaps those debates will be held as they feel like there's no way out of this may actually have to be back and they actually have to hold hearings on this one thing i noticed in. the for example dutch discussion on repatriating isis families is is this significant emphasis on the where those children were born so you always have somebody saying that those children were born primarily in iraq or primarily in syria do you think there may be an effort underway to kind of. those children all of that potential citizenship because they

have the normal practice is to give children the this edition chip of the parents but now that their parents have been stripped of citizenship and they were born in . syria or iraq maybe they don't deserve the citizenship at all. other question then that would be lead to the indication that. they would have to kind of either be stateless people permanently or they would have to face the arbitrary legal structures of syria or iraq and be confined to that and stuck with that so that's something that they have to face and iraq has definitely been taking strong initiatives against former isis fighters with questionable rule of law with questionable adherence to the western legal standards so they are have to be born into iraq and they get the iraqi legal system is very likely that these people will be either kept there indefinitely and then when they go up even be kept in prison for twenty years thirty years less now you mentioned they had the russian policy on their repatriating the isis family members and there's been an active effort for

more than a year and a half that has not actually been publicized in the russian media because i think the russian public opinion is also. strongly and i says in this regard people are legitimately concerned that these people may present a terrorist threat in the future and yet there has been an active effort to bring back both women and children but i think nowadays especially the children do you take that as russia p.r. and afeard of sorts or do you think that is a genuine expression of i hate this word values there that's an interesting question i don't think it's quite a neat dichotomy the way you see is that there's definitely a lot of reserve about taking in former isis fighters after all they said temperature thousand and fifteen decision to intervene in syria from russia was largely determined effectively as a preemptive war that isis is going to disperse they may lead the north caucasus and we landed in russia they realize terrorist attacks against us unless we act

versts unless we go in and i thanked them but of course is also left out in the russian media that the vast majority of russian airstrikes do not target not even targeted stream as they targeted the city this is of the assad regime but i think that now there is a growing. to kind of make russia look more moralistic for example in late two thousand and seventeen putin unveiled this policy every teacher saying that we are acting on moral grounds or kind of upholding our moral responsibility to our own citizens while the west does not and as i mentioned earlier i think that russia wants read this. image of tolerance that it's a state that is a orthodox state increasingly but also willing to give its muslim minorities access to the rule of law and a fair hearing and not these people as unreformable not these children just as like at people who should be cast away and as wasted talent is you know that the people who can actually be reintegrate into society through rehabilitation and be part of

communities and be functioning members again so russia wants to show that it's more open minded and tolerant than what maybe it is in keeping or open minded and tolerant in that regard because i'm sure you know that for russia the isis fighters present a much larger threat down for the west i mean just in terms of the number you know people who traveled to syria from dagestan from chechnya from the caucasus republics as well as from central asian countries they're much like cumulatively the number is much bigger than bin number all for people who traveled from britain or i suppose even from all be continental europe combined so there is said there are security risks for russia and not policy i may not i think it is definitely our security risks that also i think that the threat at times can be periodically politicized exaggerated particularly in light of the memory of the second chechen war the moscow apartment bombings the beslan murder all these say the things the russians got like this kind of institutional memory of terrorism that is willing to

provoke fear. from people coming from the middle east and of people coming from the north caucasus terrorism within its own borders that other countries perhaps do not have regularly within europe and also i think that yes i think that there is a there while russia has taken a more moral the high. ground with the trading of children which i think is a very good policy the their lack of consular access to rock has led to some misleading figures in as many as fourteen hundred russian fighters who are now stuck in iraq or in syria and their wives and their children who are not being repatriated to the mayor or is actually only a minority who are being taken back not the majority according to some independent analysis not something that's overlooked but their war is still ongoing and from what i know and from what i hear in moscow today day after it's actually under way particularly with regards to the iraqi diplomacy because iraq for one doesn't one those people in that own prisons anyway mr money we have to take

a short break now but we'll be back in just a few moments states. are. currently . we're going. to tell johnson feel. about that. now that there are no. leaks. to all nations all the been through. her. posts.

to. this is a sticker from the old water bottle found in the stomach of the fish the brand is part of the coca-cola company which sells millions of bottles of soda every day the idea was that let's tell consumers there are the bad ones the company has long promised to reuse the plastic. from the. disease to.

come back to the part that milligram money a doctoral candidate in international relations at the university of oxford mystery money before the break we started talking about doing what's right for the people and when it comes to the rebuilding of syria the russian and western positions again ah diverging would it be fair to say that by this point they reckon struction has become the continuation of war by other means. yes i think that reconstruction has not been about enough attention to manage hereon side of things or development is the bit about winning the peace so now that russia feels that it's won the war with the sad retaining power it's iran as well as their western was western opponents of us that are seeking to kind of dominate the process influence it

wasn't countries are very reluctant to recognize the fact that assad is one like formally and also to admit that they were perhaps wrong in condemning him or siding against him so whitley in the early stages of the war so they're tactically to me to undermine the reconstruction process by the prolongation of sanctions and by refusal to invest on the grounds that iran is present in southern syria or on the grounds that has had more legitimacy has been completely shattered over the past eight years because of his work rhymes the use of chemical weapons and the like so i think that western countries would want a situation where syria's reconstructed but in a way in which you can start by a third power not russia iran not by the west a by the g.c.c. or by china so effectively a new set of powers kind of restore influence by the prospect of those countries investing in syria appears to be quite remote at this point you wrote recently about malls close objectives in low being for syrian record struction including how

being assad to consolidate he's holding power and increasing russia's profile perhaps benefiting from it financially what about the syrian people do you think they figure at all in moscow's calculations i think that russia does want to appear like a responsible stakeholder in the world stage it does wonder period that it does care about human rights humanitarian issues they look at the use of humanitarian aid convoys in various conflicts as including or look at how for example they were the first country in the u.n. security council to raise the alarm about famine in the data in the saudi conduct in yemen so there's definitely a desire to appear like a responsible humanitarian stakeholder but also a way i think that they are. our focus primarily on getting economic benefits from this conflict on perhaps backing off of the capital that other countries have more resources to invest in loans like china maybe down the line a tray and then they benefit economically and they can look like they're building houses building hospitals building facilities improving education and they help the

syrian people and they look like a responsible stakeholder so it's about benefit economically first and foremost and secondly appearing responsible appearing like humanitarian stakeholder advancing principles that are positive and justin's or mr money for everybody agrees on the principles if everyone wants to portray himself or herself as a humanitarian in syria why is there such a difficulty for all the parties coming together supposedly they all care about the people of syria why is it so difficult for them to do something practical together to alleviate the suffering i think is a tremendous amount of distrust between the different powers and also the state of for western russia relations it really doesn't help in that regard either but even just in terms of giving resources to assad. even though there has been situations in the syrian u.n. relief programs have been funneled directly to the syrian state and directly to the assad regime and there but also evidence of suction from the assad regime and this

is you to like there were thirty three major areas of humanitarian donation there were listed. and only six of them are receiving supplies but mr money with all due respect do you think b.b.'s ab government has any reason to mistrust the international community when it comes to distributing aid after all that history of using aid convoys for smuggling weapons into rebel how territories and etc i mean. it looks like you're saying that assad is you know is the only party here who doesn't have any reason to mistrust one another oh i don't think that this has only parts of mistrust a baby that there's just a general it's just. distrust of assad and what he will do with the aid money once it's coming through is that people figure it's better not to give it at all and to have that or to reward him for his for his behavior warden for his alarm with the rather things like this but i do agree that there is a state centered bias in humanitarian aid so when it does go to rebel groups

business they go to the underprivileged it has to go to the militants it is to go to the people who have territorial control and it if they in the revolution there is as an effective sometimes in these kind of comfort zones as it is when you give it to the state so it's very difficult to establish trust at this point and yet tell me if i'm wrong really try to establish some degree of trust because when they reckon struction first began russia first turn to the united states with an offer to participate that didn't work out after that most could turn to the e.u. hoping that the europeans at least how an interest in a pacifying syria and thumbing the flow off migrants that i didn't work out either now russia from what i understand from your writing has turned to china and saudi arabia so it looks like it's not only pursuing its own agenda it's actually eagerly trying to get other people on board it definitely wants to get other people on

board it wants to make sure that its investments in syria have kind of kind of duty for war as an economic perspective the syria the southwest is a stable civil state first and foremost strain of that doesn't have the resources to invest in its own people it won't be able to ever be able to convert any kind of peace settlement into a long term civil constitutional framework that will be able to prevent internal insurgencies for example it won't be able to really act as a sovereign actor ascendance own two feet so russia definitely has as they noted in that article started by courting the west and courting by then corey non western countries brickwall in the west federally because he believes there's just an institutional bias about dealing. russia and there's such a dunford in the highest levels of the military is. superficial contact at the lower levels is such an aversion to dialogue cooperation of people are putting their own mistress and also that is ahead of what's good and what's right for the syrian people finding it isn't to be

a version to russia to be so much stronger than a big concern for the syrian people even though that it supposedly is a pretext for supporting the military a militant insurgency in that country for so many years anyway if you years ago that bomb administration you used to talk about how the iranians and the saudis need to learn how to share the region and i think to some extent at least the kremlin is now trying to you has this concept in syria if the saudis indeed agreed to participate in they reckon structure that i think would give them some labyrinths against the iranians do you think they're likely to take up that offer so actually they both this came from in two thousand and sixteen the u.a.e. which has always been more pragmatic than the saudis with regards to dealing with us if for example it supported the russian military intervention in syria as long as it was targeting islamic movements they didn't support the arming rebel groups so the u.a.e.

from fright max them point said that if we engage with assad and we promote me into the syrian conflict we will be able to pry assad away from iran i think that's a positive and that's the angle a saudi arabia will take by by investing in syria if it does choose to invest but it's not necessarily about finding common ground with iran or finding common ground with syria or even improving the really the welfare of syrians it's more about investing just enough to get the government to realize that it's got an economic dependence on the gulf that can perhaps equal or supersede his military dependence on iran and then turn it away and then pry it away pretty early if the sunni's in syria are seeing that the saudis are investing in humanitarian projects and they. are putting pressure on the assad regime to acknowledge that and establish better relations with the gulf countries now let me also ask you about there on this well in one of your articles you made the point that russia and iran are now facing an increasing competition over all

sorts of contracts and me even be sabotaging some of the uranium projects for example in real estate why would you do that i think that russia and iran had a very common set of interests that brought them together in two thousand and fifteen both countries invests a great deal in bashar al assad they wanted to retain power and they wanted also to have the sunni posts of the extremists of the gulf countries to be effectively removed from the syrian equation as we enter the reconstruction there's been a fundamental divide in between that you know iran for example was much more willing to encourage that to recapture every inch of syria well as russia has focused more on giving us had control over the most integral parts of the country and then proceeding to as a peace have allowed i mean disagreements are spilling over to reconstruction if you look at as recently as may russian foreign minister sergei lavrov was very concerned and very reticent about any rain presence in southern syria that would last in a military fashion putin you turned on that at

a healthy summit because yet you recognizes the political realities of iran being there but i don't think that that distrust has died and the reconstruction sphere is a business operation is business competition the iranians for example wanted access to russia's phosphate and oil in the preferential way but russia and its businesses jumped in first and were able to sign a more effective deal so even within the competition is not just driven by different visions is driven by competing business interests and also pressure from within iran that we should act faster the russians are after we cooperated and put the troops on the ground for russian air operation there the russians are now just looking out for themselves and not the have us so the. a lot of distrust there i think in the in the russian conception of diplomacy alienating one country is just as risky as over relying on and not it doesn't that guaranteed that the rein in interest at least at that very minimal will be mad just like the interest of all other players i think that yes that russia doesn't want to obviously be having

syria completely dependent on iran doesn't want to rely too much on it because it also wants to maintain productive relationships of those rail and with the g.c.c. so it doesn't want to have a situation where iran is in trade in syria and using that as the base to launch for example missile strikes against israeli targets or things like that so it wants to work with the reconstruction because their military partners they want to take that alliance in syria to other conflicts where they have the yemen whether it be afghanistan by the also at the same time wants to look out for its own interests and those interests will come first and well i think that's the case with any country if the russians not really an exception here anyway mr money we have to leave it there but i really appreciate your being with us today and sharing your perspective thank you very much thank you very much for inviting me again it was a pleasure i encourage our viewers to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and hope to hear again same place same time here on the part of.

there was no tree or labor and environmental standards in the original enough to five years ago were kicked out because relations were more putin but the. now the religion is very very close intertwined so i think it's ok to have a new treaty and you negotiation. desists is a stick of water bottle phone in the stomach of the fish the brand is spawns of the coca-cola company which sells millions of bottles of soda every day the idea was

that let's tell consumers there are the bad was there the litter bugs are throwing this away industry should be blamed for all of this waste the company has long promised to reuse the plastic. so. that seems cool sets for something they're plastic a sixty cause the only. thing you can lose at a session projects funded. on now and you guessed that is the end of a pretty steep but fun now in the mountains of waste only grow. up and someone. bought their you know what they cost. for you. to join you coming up from up there and out of the

still think i want to justify. something awful because a couple of. you just got me. on the couch there would be ok sign here to us what you know full well for you i think i think i will. say to. you want to go there for fun. get on for nothing. but i know that in a way out of your fucking here. full of the united. plane with one hundred fifty seven people on board.

read. the report on washington's approach to the. islamic. terrorist. stronghold.