Christy Lou Stout (2:44)

I'm standing outside the court where the former Hong Kong media mogul and longtime critic of China, Jimmy Lai, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. In December he was found guilty of sedition and two counts of colluding with foreign forces. Now, collusion here in Hong Kong under the Beijing imposed National Security Law is a very serious crime punishable by up to life in prison. Jimmy Lai earlier had pleaded not guilty to all the charges. In December, the three judges presiding over the case and convicted Jimmy Lai. They called him a, quote, mastermind of conspiracies. They pointed out his lobbying of US Politicians during President Donald Trump's first term, as well as how he used his empire, namely his Apple Daily newspaper, to call for international sanctions against China and Hong Kong during the 2019 protests. Now, this has been the most high profile national security case since the law was imposed by Beijing and on Hong Kong in 2020. It's been roundly criticized by Western governments. The US and other countries have called for the release of Jimmy Lai. In fact, US President Donald Trump reportedly pressed Chinese leader Xi Jinping to free Jimmy Lai during their talks last year. China has repeatedly warned against any interference. And Hong Kong has insisted that Jimmy Lai has received a fair trial. So what happens next? Well, an appeal could be a long, drawn out process with a low success rate. As for Jimmy lai, he is 78 years old and has already spent more than five years in prison.

Bianna Golodryga (4:18)

Our thanks to Christy Lou Stout reporting from Hong Kong. Now let's go to Rush Doshi, an expert on China, a professor at Georgetown and a senior fellow in the Council on Foreign Relations. Rush, welcome to the program. So, as the New York Times notes, this 20 year sentence is harsh, even by mainland states. And you look at six former Apple Daily employees who were sentenced to up to 10 years, what do you make of the message that perhaps China and these courts are sending by imposing such a harsh sentence on Lai?

Rush Doshi (4:54)

Well, it's great to be with you. And let's start with a basic fact. You know, Jimmy Lai was a self made man. He made a fortune in the textile business. He fled from Maoist China to Hong Kong and he chose to use that fortune to, to promote liberal values, democracy and human rights in Hong Kong right after the Tiananmen Square massacre. So he's been viewed as a thorn in Beijing's side for a very long time. And really in the last few years, we've seen Beijing throw a series of charges against him because they want to shut him up and they wanted to shut him down. The signal that they want to send to the rest of the community in Hong Kong, but also within China and around the world, is if you criticize China, you'll face consequences.

Bianna Golodryga (5:30)

And we should note that Lai was tried by a hand picked panel of judges without a jury. And as you know, he has been a thorn in the government side now for years, writing scathing op eds. I spoke with one of his attorneys in the summer of last year as we were awaiting not only the trial, but then obviously this Sentencing, and here's what she told me. What we've essentially seen so far with.

Dara Masicow (5:56)

Jimmy Lai's case has been him facing charges under the National Security Law, which essentially amount to conspiracy to commit journalism. So under the National Security Law, dissent has essentially been criminalized. And Jimmy Lai has been targeted for running a newspaper, for exercising internationally protected rights, and for standing up for democratic values which the world holds dear.

Bianna Golodryga (6:20)

What does this sentencing of Jimmy Lai mean for whatever remains of Hong Kong's media and business elite?

Rush Doshi (6:28)

Yeah, this is the final nail in the coffin to the idea that Hong Kong still has free speech. Twenty years ago, Hong Kong ranked the top 20 for press freedoms. Today it's something like 150. So this is pretty consequential. And I'll just note that the view you just heard isn't just the view of Jimmy Lai's lawyers. It's also the view of the United Nations. The United nations has consistently called for Jimmy Lai's release. They said this prosecution was in fact a kind of criminalization of journalism, that it's at odds with the rights that Jimmy Lai has that the UN essentially enshrines. And as a direct result, we saw just recently that the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights basically said that this verdict should be overturned. This is wrong. The sentencing is wrong. And that's not the only case. I mean, the Secretary General of the UN complained and raised concerns that essentially China was coercing Jimmy Lai's children and legal team to not basically engage with the United nations at all. So often people will point out that the us, the uk, the EU have raised concerns about Jimmy Lai's treatment. But I think it's important to note that it's also the United nations too.

Dara Masicow (7:26)

Right.

Bianna Golodryga (7:27)

And you mentioned Jimmy Lai's children. I'd like to play sound from what his son Sebastian told me in an interview last year as well, alongside that of his attorney.

Jake Sullivan (7:39)

Mentally and spiritually, he is strong. You know, he knows that he did the right thing. He knows that in standing up for freedom and standing up for a free press and staying in Hong Kong and defending his colleagues and other democracy protesters, that was the right thing to do. And, you know, I'm incredibly proud of him. And I think. I think he knows that the world is watching and that he is. That his courage is inspiring.

Bianna Golodryga (8:09)

And that courage remains even through the sentencing. As was reported, the reaction in the room. His wife cried upon hearing the 20 year sentence. And Lai managed a smile out of it. This man is a British citizen. He could have left Hong Kong and Yet he chose to stay, given what we've now heard from governments in other Western countries, from the United Kingdom. President Trump even weighed in on this before the last election, saying that he would 100% focus on getting Lai released. Marco Rubio tweeted, posted on X just this morning, that the sentencing of Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong is an unjust and tragic conclusion to this case. We urge authorities to grant Lai humanitarian parole. Do you think this is China using him as a bargaining chip for whatever they are hoping to get out of ongoing negotiations with either the US or other European countries?

Rush Doshi (9:07)

Well, let's look at the timeline. Remember, China went after Jimmy Lai in a big way in 2020, when he was arrested in December 2020, and he hasn't been released ever since. He's been in detention for 1,800 days. Ever since then, they've come up with a series of different claims about what he's done wrong. At one point, the accusation was he was guilty of fraud. At another point, there were irregularities with one of his leases. Later on, it was, of course, this idea that he's been involved in collusion with foreign governments. The fact that the charges kept changing shows one thing, that the goal has always been to silence him and to remove a thorn from their side and also to consolidate their control over Hong Kong. Hong Kong is no longer the same international city that it was seven, eight, nine years ago. That process has now finally concluded with Jimmy Lai sentencing in a very significant way. So is this about leverage? Maybe. But I think most fundamentally, it's about China asserting control over a city that, frankly, it feels it never fully controlled until now.

Bianna Golodryga (9:58)

So if one country, two systems was viewed as dead last year or the last few years following those protests, where is it now?

Rush Doshi (10:08)

Well, it looks more like one country, one system. Remember, this is not something that just happened overnight. Beginning in 2014, Beijing decided that essentially, the chief executive of Hong Kong should be prevetted by Beijing. Voters might have a choice, but they would only be able to choose Beijing selected candidates. People protested that in 2019, they came up with essentially this extradition law in Hong Kong, which would allow folks in Hong Kong to be extradited to the mainland, where they could be tried and sentenced to by the mainland's legal system, eliminating any sense that Hong Kong was somehow separate from China where it counts. And then in 2020, after a series of protests, the government of Hong Kong put forward the National Security Law. And all of this has fundamentally shrunk the space for civil society, democracy, human rights, liberal expression, freedom of assembly within Hong Kong. It's not a recognizable city politically the same way it was more than 10 years ago. And I think this has real implications. Hong Kong's special status has always been grounded in the respect for the rule of law, and yet now we see that the rule of law is essentially what Beijing says it is. You noted there was no jury for this trial. That's right. That's unusual. In addition, all the judges were hand selected by the Chief Executive, who himself was hand selected by Beijing with no opposition. So in the end, Beijing is picking the judge. They're essentially picking the jury. They're also picking the sentencing. It's all controlled by Beijing.

Bianna Golodryga (11:23)

So then, looking forward now, five, ten years from today, what is the. The media ecosystem look like in Hong Kong?

Rush Doshi (11:32)

Well, I think we have to be realistic that this is the end of any free media ecosystem. Actually, even the conversation we're having right now could be charged under Article 38 of the National Security Law. If it's found that either you or I are somehow critical of this decision by Beijing or critical of the sentencing of Jimmy Lai, that allows essentially the criminalization of conduct outside the borders of Hong Kong. If it seemed to be kind of antithetical to Hong Kong's security. You've seen right now that Hong Kong essentially has issued bounties for American and British citizens for being critical of Hong Kong. All of that is a sign of what's to come. And if you're in Hong Kong, how can you possibly report freely when if you're outside of Hong Kong, you're also being targeted? And even those dissidents that have left the city, their families remain in Hong Kong and are targeted, sometimes even prosecuted for their activity abroad. So this is an environment which I think increasingly resembles mainland China, and it raises questions about whether companies operating in Hong Kong should continue to act and treat that jurisdiction as if it's somehow different, somehow special, and somehow protective?

Bianna Golodryga (12:32)

I think they've already woken up to that reality and question that very point you just made several years ago. Rush Doshi, thank you so much. Good to see you.

Rush Doshi (12:42)

Thank you very much.

Bianna Golodryga (12:43)

Well, now Jimmy Lai holds British citizenship, as we've noted, and the UK Government has responded with a statement of concern. But can Prime Minister Keir Starmer do anything more? Today? He's fighting to keep his job as outrage continues over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to Washington, even after Mandelson was found to have close ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Let's turn now to British MP Tom Tugenhat for More. Tom, thank you so much for taking the time to join us. First, your reaction to Lai's sentencing of 20 years. He is a British citizen.

Tom Tugendhat (13:19)

Well, it's quite clearly a disgrace. I mean, it's not, let's be honest, it's not a surprise. China ceased to apply the rule of law to Hong Kong about 10 years ago and started to treat it as just another part of China. And we know that in China you've got the mass arrests of Uyghur Muslims, forced labor, slave camps, executions, more executions in fact, than almost anywhere else and the world. And so many political prisoners it's impossible to count Tibetans, Christians, anybody else really, frankly, who comes up against the Chinese Communist Party. It hasn't changed in 70, 80 years. And it's still torturing the Chinese people, much as it has done for much of this century.

Bianna Golodryga (14:01)

And the UK government says that it has raised Lai's case, quote, at the highest levels during the Prime Minister's recent engagement with Beijing and his visit with Xi Jinping. We should note that Xi Jinping, prior to the Prime Minister's visit on January 13, had lifted sanctions on six MPs, you being one of them. But you've continued to say that you think the Prime Minister should not have gone to meet with President Xi Jinping unless he could have secured the release of Jimmy Lai.

Tom Tugendhat (14:38)

Well, I think that's right. I don't see any reason why the Prime Minister should have given as a diplomatic win to Chairman Xi, you know. In exchange for what? In exchange for lifting sanctions on me. I don't care. I don't have any interest in China. I'm never going to go to Macau. I don't have any money in Chinese bank accounts. I really don't care whether they sanction me or not. What I do care about is the fact that a British citizen, Jimmy Lai, is being held for more than 1,000 days in violation of his rights, removed from any possibility of receiving Communion. He's a practicing Roman Catholic and he's not able to go to Mass and he's not able to see his grandchildren. And now he's been given a 20 year sentence, the longest sentence ever given under National Security Law. Which means that he won't have a life sentence, he'll have a death sentence. This is a 78 year old man.

Bianna Golodryga (15:29)

So do you suppose that had Keir Starmer been defiant in saying that he would not go to China without the release of Lai, do you think that things would have been different? Whether it's how this verdict would have Come down. Or do you think that there would have been a scenario where Xi Jinping would have intervened, perhaps in this case? Because the flip side of this is that, yes, there's a British citizen, one can question whether his rights have been upheld. On the other hand, the country is in a precarious economic situation with billions of dollars at stake as it relates to ties with China.

Tom Tugendhat (16:11)

Well, he didn't succeed on that either. The only investment he managed to get was AstraZeneca investing in China. So, frankly, that was utterly useless for the British people as well. I mean, all that he did was make Britain look weak on the international scene. He allowed the Chinese president. Chinese. Sorry, he's not really a president, is he? He's chairman of the Chinese Military Commission, which is how he holds his power. Let's not forget Chairman Xi holds his power through the barrel of a gun, not through anything else. And all he did was allow himself to be belittled in the Forbidden City. I mean, it was a pathetic trip, really, by an absolute nobody of a prime minister made to look pathetic by a Chinese dictator. So he shouldn't have gone. And he certainly shouldn't have gone while a British citizen was in prison.

Bianna Golodryga (17:00)

So then how do you respond to those who say that it wasn't so long ago that a member of your own party was in that very office as Keir Starmer was, and Jimmy Lai was still held. He's been held for four years now behind bars in Hong Kong. Nothing was done to see his release then by your own party?

Tom Tugendhat (17:20)

Well, I was critical of it then. If you want to play party politics with this, we can play party politics. I think that's pretty pathetic, too, frankly. There's a British citizen who's been imprisoned for 1,000 days. I don't care who's in government. I don't care which party it is. I think the British government has a responsibility to take action on it. I was the first minister when I was appointed Security Minister to meet Jimmy's family when I chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee. I raised this all the time. You know, if you want to play party politics, fine, but I think it's rather boring.

Bianna Golodryga (17:49)

I'm not playing party politics. I'm just stating the obvious. And that is that you are in the opposing party now. And as we know in every country, here in the United States included, it's much easier for somebody from an opposing party to criticize decisions and actions made by the sitting government. And so, you know, it's notable that you say that you criticized your own party Government? Yes. Yes. Let me ask you about the warning that you delivered about the Chinese mega embassy, which you say could become a base for hostile activity. Do you think that the British government under Keir Starmer has perhaps traded away leverage on that front as well prior to the visit to China?

Tom Tugendhat (18:34)

Yes, totally. I mean, frankly, Keir Starmer gave the Chinese everything they asked for and then was surprised he got nothing in return. Well, he's clearly never entered in negotiation before. He put all his cards on the table face up and is surprised that he lost a hand.

Bianna Golodryga (18:49)

At the same time, we now see the UK has expanded visas for Hong Kong residents. Officials estimate that about 26,000 more arrivals over the next five years.

Dara Masicow (18:59)

Years.

Bianna Golodryga (19:01)

Will be on the dock. More than 230,000 visas have already been granted since 2020. Do you expect these numbers to even rise higher now following long sentence?

Tom Tugendhat (19:14)

Let's just be clear. These are not visas for Hong Kong residents. These are rights granted to British nationals under the old law of British nationals overseas. In 1984, when the British government negotiated the return of Hong Kong to China, one of the things that we did then, which was an error we should not have done, was that we changed the status of British citizens. Before 1984, British citizens were British citizens wherever they were in the world. After 1984, we created a different form of citizenship called British nationals overseas. What this does is correct that wrong. It allows British nationals to come to the United Kingdom like any other UK citizen. So it's not a visa.

Bianna Golodryga (19:56)

So do you expect these numbers then to still rise for those seeking to leave Hong Kong and move to the uk?

Tom Tugendhat (20:06)

We're seeing Hong Kongers leave Hong Kong all the time. There are many who come to the UK and they're very welcome here. Those British nationals who were born and brought up in Hong Kong, and we've seen many go to other countries, including Canada and some to the United States. So it's not really surprising because what we've seen is the complete erosion of the rule of law. And of course, the next thing that will follow, or in fact it's already following, is the erosion of the Hong Kong economy, which is being very badly damaged.

Walter Isaacson (20:32)

Now.

Tom Tugendhat (20:33)

Some countries, like Singapore, are doing very well out of that because a lot of the money has moved there. And indeed, quite a lot of the Chinese princelings, including Xi's own money, has moved out of Hong Kong into Singapore, into the Americas, where Xi's daughter is living like a billionaire in the United States, which is lucky, because all that money has been stolen off the Chinese People by the dictator of China.

Bianna Golodryga (20:56)

Yeah. And obviously this is a British citizen we're talking about. But there are questions as to what more the president of the United States, who arguably has even more leverage over Xi Jinping, what he could be doing now, especially given his previous comments that he would try to 100% see the release of Jimmy Lai. This was prior to the election of last year. We know that there's a state visit upcoming now between President Trump and Xi Jinping in Beijing as well. I do want to finally ask you about the growing turmoil and scandal regarding Keir Starmer and the question over his potential leadership and how much longer he can stay in office. Given what we've seen happen with Peter Mandelson and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the more information that has come out about how much Keir Starmer did or didn't know before appointing him as ambassador to the US.

Tom Tugendhat (21:52)

Well, the problem that Keir Starmer's got is that everybody knew, including Keir Starmer. He didn't deny it. When asked about it by Kemi Badenoch the other day in the House of Commons, he said he did know that Peter Mandelson had maintained his relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The problem with these files is they demonstrate that Jeffrey Epstein was not just a paedophile and child trafficker. He also very clearly had very strong connections to the Russian government and indeed to the Russian intelligence services. And it looks like Peter Mandelson and others, in feeding information to Jeffrey Epstein, may also have been feeding them into the Kremlin. So all those who were close friends of Jeffrey Epstein for 20, 30 years look like they've had very close, very personal relationships with the Russian mob and indeed with the Kremlin, which does raise questions in many other governments, not just our own.

Bianna Golodryga (22:48)

Your final second, your prediction. Will Keir Starmer be able to retain his job, let's say, six months from now?

Tom Tugendhat (22:56)

I couldn't give you a date, but he could be gone by the end of the week. He could be gone in a few months, but it's quite clear that he doesn't have the support of his own party, let alone the country.

Bianna Golodryga (23:08)

Tom Fukenhat, thank you so much for the time. Really appreciate it today. Thank you. And coming up for us is peace on the horizon for Ukraine? President Zelensky claims that the US Wants the war ended by June, but many remain skeptical. Russia expert Dara Masico joins the show to discuss what this might mean on the battlefield. That's coming up. What is it about Australia that just hits different. Australia is where we shared our first.

Tom Tugendhat (23:40)

Kiss, where we fell in love. That was 18 years ago now.

Dara Masicow (23:45)

And this is what your fourth trip back.

Jake Sullivan (23:47)

Australia has this incredible way of drawing you back.

Bianna Golodryga (23:49)

The ocean, the people, the oysters. So good, so briny and delicious. And the possibility of exploring something new. Learn more about Zach and Laura's journey@australia.com and start planning the vacation of a lifetime.

Jake Sullivan (24:06)

Tav, I got news for your ears. The podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black.

Bianna Golodryga (24:12)

Here's your favorite.

Jake Sullivan (24:14)

I got the horse right here. Your favorite musical comedy star, Harry Enta. You see this 31 point shift to the left, right?

Walter Isaacson (24:21)

If this were just one election, that would be one thing.

Bianna Golodryga (24:25)

I like his. Sammy Davis won an election.

Jake Sullivan (24:28)

He does the rat tack. He does everything. He's incredible. Anybody deserves a residency in Vegas, it's this guy. He does impressions, he does songs, he dances. He probably plays the drums like Sammy. He probably does everything. And what's the news from Europe? Harry Entin, where the boys are marching across Italy and making their way to Berlin. So how are we supposed to believe those? I honestly didn't hear a word he said. I was only focused on Harry the individual. Have I got news for your ears. Releases new episodes every Wednesday. Don't miss an episode. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts.

Bianna Golodryga (25:09)

Will four years of war be over in the next four months? That's what Donald Trump wants. According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a new round of Russia Ukraine talks could soon take place in Miami. But with Kremlin's relentless assaults on its neighbor and so many sticking points remaining, especially over territory still unresolved, is ending the war before the summer just a pipe dream? Let's bring in Dara Masicow from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Dara, it's good to see you. Welcome From Washington, dc. So let's start there. I do remember the last time I spoke with Michael Kaufman, your colleague. He had predicted, and rightly so, sadly, that this war would definitely go in through 2026. And here we are now. The president, President Trump has set another deadline that he would like this war to end by this summer. Do you see that as a feasible timeline? And if so, if we do get to a ceasefire, who stands to benefit more here? Is it Russia or Ukraine?

Dara Masicow (26:11)

Well, thanks so much for having me back. When it comes to the June timeline, I think a lot of it depends on what type of flexibility Moscow is going to show. There are a few key sticking points in the discussions. And even though we're on the eighth or ninth rounds of talks, it remains control over Ukraine's Donetsk region. Moscow has not relented or shown any flexibility on who should control that. Kyiv has signaled its willingness to have it be a demilitarized zone. Moscow still insists on full control, and depending on which day, we hear rumors that they're still insisting on international recognition. And the second point is Moscow's resistance to any foreign presence there.

Bianna Golodryga (26:54)

So to the first point, if Moscow does even agree to creating a demilitarized zone, if you look at their past actions in Georgia, in other incursions like this, even past agreements that Russia has made, they haven't honored them. And here you have President Trump continuing to look for ways to show that President Putin is complying with him. So what does that say about the likelihood that even if Moscow does agree to some sort of deal today, that they will uphold that deal tomorrow?

Dara Masicow (27:31)

I place very little faith in their claims. They claim to want to control that whole region, maybe monitoring it with National Guard or other forces. And I think it's important to remember that the Russian National Guard is a very heavily militarized force. That force would look like a military, and it would allow them to increase their positions closer to Ukraine proper. I just don't think that they would hold it. And in other areas like Georgia, they have a tendency to slowly walk the line back meter by meter over time and hope that no one notices. So it would be disadvantageous for Russia to occupy everything up to the border of Donetsk. That's why Kyiv is fighting so hard against this.

Bianna Golodryga (28:12)

Yeah. And even this idea of a demilitarized zone in Donbas, in practical terms, just talk about what's being discussed now, how that would look. Let's just say for argument's sake that Russia would uphold this agreement.

Dara Masicow (28:27)

Sure. So that means that the lines would remain the same as they are at the date of ceasefire agreements. Russia would not try to come forward any far forward than it is at that exact moment. And Ukraine would agree not to challenge that. Demilitarized zone of the rest of Donetsk, if that is what is being discussed, would be something that could be monitored by a combination of satellite imagery and drones, probably a foreign presence. So this very quickly becomes difficult to verify. Russia has advanced ways of deceiving all of those mechanisms. So this is incredibly tricky, incredibly complicated. And the Kremlin is not engaging as a good faith actor on this and is stalling out negotiations while they try to change the reality on the ground.

Bianna Golodryga (29:12)

You mentioned a potential foreign presence there, monitoring in addition to drones, etcetera, Russia has been explicit that any European presence in Ukraine, any NATO presence in Ukraine would be something that is off the table for them. So who would this third party be?

Dara Masicow (29:34)

It's unclear. They remain resistant to this. I have heard, and it's been publicly discussed as well, that the UK and France might have a limited contingent somewhere in Ukraine. It's not clear to me exactly where they would be. As far as I can tell, there is no conversation about US boots on the ground as part of that monitoring group. So it's not really clear to me yet who the west has in mind to fulfill that role. I know those things are being discussed extensively behind closed doors.

Bianna Golodryga (30:03)

Give us a state of play on the battlefield right now, because there's a narrative, and it's been in place now for many months, that Ukraine is losing and losing badly. This is what is being described as a war of attrition at this point. Neither side is really winning. But is Ukraine losing the way that Russia would like the world to think?

Dara Masicow (30:26)

No, I wouldn't agree with that. The casualties on the Russian side, the number that I hear most often from different quarters is 30,000 casualties a month. There's some discrepancies there on what that means in terms of killed or permanently disabled and can't return to the fight. But I think the thing to note about that is these are some of the highest Russian casualties that we've seen in four years at a time when the Ukrainian armed forces are struggling with manpower. So even though they're in a pretty damaged shape at the moment, they're still inflicting these massive losses on the Russian forces that although Russia can tweak things here and there, this is a real problem for them to maintain force levels as they are. So I wouldn't agree on the ground that, that they are losing. I don't know that Ukraine at this point in time has the ability to mount any large scale counter offensive. So the lines are not moving in the way that Ukraine wants. They're not moving in the way that the Kremlin would like either. The second part of this though, that I think is really acute at the moment is Russia's missile and drone strike campaign against Ukraine's energy grid. They're really damaging it. They're quite lethal, quite effective. And in Kyiv in particular as a main target, coupled with freezing temperatures, I think right now it's six degrees in Kyiv. Negative one tonight. It's really hurting the civilian population. And there's, there's an air defense problem which is causing this and Contributing to this.

Bianna Golodryga (31:53)

Yeah, which is why so many are describing Russia's tactics now and focus on targeting the energy grid, a war crime. The Wall Street Journal suggests at this point now, four years into this war, that Ukraine needs a plan beyond simply attrition. And what they're saying is that Russia's battleground or battlefield drone strategy is focused anywhere on medium range of 12 to 50mil, prioritizing targets like Ukraine's drone operations, as well as logistics. We've spent so many times talking about the ways that Ukraine has really innovated and taken lead on drone warfare. Well, Russia at this point has caught up. The argument that the Wall Street Journal is making is that while Russia is focused on that, that the Ukrainians continue to focus just on killing as many Russian troops as possible, killing, as you noted, tens of thousands a month, four years into this war. Is it time, do you think? Do you agree with the Wall Street Journal's analysis that it's time for Ukraine to refocus its priorities?

Dara Masicow (33:03)

Possibly. So I would say on the methods that they're using right now, it is causing real problems for the Russians. By their own admission, they cannot fix this problem on the battlefield. Every time they try to gather together for an offensive of any kind, whether it's foot or using tanks, the Ukrainians are able to target them and destroy them. So there is a real challenge for the Russians with the way that Ukraine is fighting. I think some of the other challenges, though, like just the massive number of. Increasingly, the use of ballistic missiles in particular, requires a different air defense solution. Ukraine is running low on interceptors. The sheer number of shahed drones and the modification to shahed drones requires a solution. And I think there are some in work on Ukraine's side, but eliminating some of that strike power would provide relief. I'd say the positive thing about the drones, just talking about that, the disruption to Starlink, removing illicit Russian use of Starlink, has disabled some of those strikes, particularly at that 50 kilometer range that's been so dangerous for Ukrainian logistics. So there's a temporary reprieve there until the Russians figure out how to bypass that block.

Bianna Golodryga (34:16)

So in terms of the air defense that Ukraine is desperately in need of at this point, we know that the Europeans have really come forward both in terms of their language and pledges to continue to provide Ukraine with military aid and in buying some of those weapons from the United States, but minus the United States really stepping up, I mean, how much do you think Europe can actually contribute here without the US Doing more and providing more aid? More Weapons.

Dara Masicow (34:48)

Well, there are some European systems which are highly effective, like the IRST system and others at targeting, but unfortunately they don't have the capacity to target Russian ballistic missiles like the Patriot can. The Patriot is the only one that is confirmed to have a kill of that type of missile. Excuse me. And the Russians unfortunately have figured out that their cruise missiles are being intercepted at a very high rate and are increasingly turning to those ballistics. So Ukraine needs additional interceptor missiles. They also need additional interceptor systems. And to the extent that Europe is willing to part with additional assets like that, it is really critical. It is really critical the next couple weeks to provide interceptors. If they've been approved because the weather is so cold right now through early March, mid March, they really need the ability to defend what remains of the energy grid near Kyiv.

Bianna Golodryga (35:42)

And obviously these European countries are also accountable to their own constituents. So as you said, I mean, they've got an answer to them as well in terms of just how many resources they continue to supply Ukraine with. Without the United States leading this charge. Ukraine's foreign minister said that the United States is now prepared to ratify security guarantees through Congress without US Troops on the ground. I know you and your colleagues are skeptical about any sort of US security guarantees in this Article 5 like pledge, and I'm wondering if you can just explain more about some of your questions and skepticism about what that pledge could look like with such vague language. No specific details as to what those guarantees actually would be.

Dara Masicow (36:31)

Yeah, I'm not, I'm not sure what Article 5 like means. Article 5 Contribute what is basically a call to have a conversation and national governments decide together to defend NATO territory. So I'm not really sure what Article 5 like guarantees means in the context of Ukraine, which is, is not in NATO. I think the United States is very reticent to contribute boots on the ground to Ukraine. They're willing to provide support in other ways, other meaningful ways, like intelligence support and other types of support that are not necessarily visible or public. Those things are, are vital to Ukraine. So that can continue, I think, very easily without political risk of any type. I do remain skeptical that when we use this vague language of Article 5 like guarantees, it is just a code word for wiggle room to get out of any meaningful contribution to the future security of Ukraine. So I think we can probably do a bit better and come up with a different frame or a different language for that framework.

Bianna Golodryga (37:35)

So given all of the vagaries that still exist now and the questions that you just raised, what's the likelihood that you think that within the next few months and possibly even by June, we could see an actual ceasefire.

Dara Masicow (37:51)

I think the Ukraine, Ukrainian delegation has shown a lot of flexibility in things that are sticking points, most particularly the Donetsk region. I am not seeing the pressure applied to Russia that makes them change their mind on how recalcitrant they are at the negotiation table. There have been sanctions against Russia. The United States and others are boarding shadow fleet ships around the globe. That is some pressure on the margins, but unfortunately, it is not enough to make Moscow come to the table. There are some carrots that we could dangle to them once they agree to a ceasefire. But again, they're not showing any willingness to do so. And I think they believe that they can proceed forward on the ground and eventually take the Donetsk region by force at an incredible cost to themselves. And I don't think they could do it by June either. So we'll see. I think more pressure is needed on Moscow to get them to soften up on some of their positions.

Bianna Golodryga (38:52)

Dara Masico, always good to see you. Thank you.

Dara Masicow (38:56)

Thank you very much.

Bianna Golodryga (38:58)

And coming up after the break, can the US harness AI's power for good? Former US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan joins Walter Isaacson to discuss how America can limit the dangers while keeping up with advancements.

Dara Masicow (39:15)

This week on THE Assignment with me, Audie Cornish. The winter Fashion week season is underway. There were shows in Milan and Paris, and then it all ends in May with fashion super bowl, the Met Gala, which is the kind of event that you can't buy your way into. Like, you actually can, as it turns out, because Jeff Bezos and his wife, Lauren Sanchez, they've literally been ushered to the front rows in recent weeks. Talking with CNN's Rachel Tajdan, I cover fashion and style. Someone actually said that they thought Sanchez, who apparently is friends with the Kardashians, is actually pulling directly from that playbook of, like, how to reinvent your image and in a way upgrade it into this fashion status. That was actually in my piece that I wrote. Oh, wait, what? Let me check my notes. Listen to the Assignment with Audie Cornish streaming now on your favorite podcast app.

Bianna Golodryga (40:16)

Now, it's been called the space race of the 21st century, but this time it's all about artificial intelligence. Preserving America's lead over China has become a top priority of President Trump's second term. But as the two nations vie for influence, the question isn't just who gets there first, but what kind of future they create in the process. Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan joins Walter Isaacson to break down exactly how America can keep competing while managing the risks.

Walter Isaacson (40:45)

Thank you. Bianna and Jake Sullivan, welcome back to the show.

Jake Sullivan (40:48)

Thank you for having me.

Dara Masicow (40:49)

Walter.

Jake Sullivan (40:49)

It's good to see you up at.

Walter Isaacson (40:51)

Harvard there you teach a course in the geopolitics in the age of Artificial Intelligence and you wrote something for Foreign affairs with that title with Tal Feldman who worked on AI when you were in the Biden administration. It has eight scenarios of how we're going to compete with China in the age of Artificial intelligence. But let me start with what would be maybe the most likely but also the most worrisome one, which is what if AI really is going to get us to artificial general intelligence? And what if it's hard to catch up if somebody else beats you? There's and China's going hell bent for it. What should our policy be?

Jake Sullivan (41:33)

Well, that's the first world we lay out that in fact we are just a short time away from a true superintelligence. That is a capacity of very powerful AI that has something called recursive self improvement, where the AI system itself is inventing new things, discovering new capabilities, unlocking new capacities in the economic and national security domain, and that the first country that gets there in a hard to catch up scenario would have an enduring advantage and that the US and China are both pell mell in a race to do it. That's kind of scenario one. And there are a lot of people, including the heads of major American AI labs who would say this is the world we're living in. In that world you don't quite have winner take all, but you would have winner take a heck of a lot, both in terms of the ability of a country to get real national security advantage in terms of their military and intelligence abilities, real economic advantage in terms of the economic growth and productivity they would unlock, and real scientific and technology advantage. Because AI inventions can produce inventions in every other field, whether it's biotechnology or clean energy or you name it. So the stakes are incredibly high in that world. And it places a premium on making the investments in computing power and talent and the electricity to power data centers. But it also places a very high premium on safety and on a conversation between the US and China to make sure this technology doesn't get away from us in ways that harm humans in both our countries and in every other country.

Walter Isaacson (43:09)

So you talk about a conversation on safety that seems to hearken back almost 80 years to when nuclear weapons came. And we said we're going to have to have Nuclear weapons arms talks. Do you think we'll have to do that in this world with China on AI?

Jake Sullivan (43:24)

We are absolutely going to have talks that are as serious, as technical, as sustained as we did in the Cold War, except for the stakes are even higher because the impact goes beyond just one class of weapons. And the problem is even harder because it's much easier to count missiles and count warheads than it is to determine AI capability. And it is much easier to verify through inspections and overflights and the other methods that we built up that the other country is in compliance with whatever agreement they reach. But I'll tell you, Walter, in the Biden administration, I had a series of very high level engagements with my Chinese counterpart. And together we teed up for our two presidents a proposal that the two presidents, Xi Jinping and Joe Biden, actually direct talks on AI risk and safety management by the US And China. We had a first session in Geneva, the place of many of those Cold War discussions on nuclear weapons, in the summer of 2024. And I would argue that Donald Trump and Xi Jinping should reach a similar agreement this year and get their teams working on this issue.

Walter Isaacson (44:31)

What did you tee up and how could that be applied during the Trump administration?

Jake Sullivan (44:36)

In their last meeting, Xi Jinping and Joe Biden made a simple agreement. They agreed that the US And China, as a matter of policy, would ensure that the decision to use nuclear weapons would never be handed over to an AI, that it would remain in the hands of humans. Now, at one level, that seems pretty damn straightforward. That should definitely be the case, should be easy to agree to. On another level, that took us nearly a year to negotiate because it's the first time that China has actually made an agreement with the United States on AI and nuclear weapons in our history. And furthermore, it shows you that these kinds of agreements are possible. So even though that was relatively low hanging fruit, my argument is take that and build on it. And we will see in 2026, multiple summit meetings between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. And I believe that near the top of the agenda should be further steps to reduce the overall level of AI risk by having the two countries who have the most capability with this technology making further agreements.

Walter Isaacson (45:41)

Among the eight scenarios you put in your foreign affairs piece, there's one that's a little bit less scary for us, which is that if somebody gets ahead in the AI race, it wouldn't be really that hard for the other country to catch up. It's not sort of an exponential thing. Did the advent of deep SEQ in China. Was that a data point that that might be the case for the world?

Jake Sullivan (46:07)

So for your viewers, you know, Deep Seq at the beginning of last year came out with a model that really moved China's capabilities forward. And it caught the world to a considerable extent by surprise because people thought China was much further behind. The reality, Walter, is that inside the U.S. government, we actually had been following Deep Seq for well more than a year before that model came out. My team was producing memos for me on a regular BAS basis saying, hey, watch this really interesting company in China. They're doing some serious, incredible work to advance the capabilities of their models. Now, the reality is US models are still ahead of Chinese models. But if you go talk to the American AI labs, they will tell you that a big problem is something called distillation, which is basically a fancy way of saying that once a US company has put a model out there in the world, Chinese companies can take a look at that, run some tests on it, and pretty rapidly follow with something fairly close in capability. That's not just true of Deep Seq, it's true of other Chinese labs as well. And if that remains the pattern going forward, if any advance by one company can be rapidly followed by another company, whether it's a US company or a Chinese company, then we're in much less of a winner take all world. It also has implications for how much you invest in the massive training runs at the front end. And it's something that I think the American AI companies are going to have to look very carefully at, because this is a totally credible scenario that is much easier to follow once an innovation happens, than many people expect.

Walter Isaacson (47:48)

A lot of what you talk about in the article tends to be digital AI, including thinking things. But there's also real world AI, autonomous robots, autonomous cars, autonomous drones, physical objects. Is that a separate category that we have to talk about?

Jake Sullivan (48:06)

Well, it depends on who you ask. Actually, there's a robust debate inside the AI community right now. There are those who believe the large language model is the kind of key to unlocking everything, meaning that as we continue to make advances in the current architecture, it will unlock new capabilities in the physical world with robotics, with self driving cars, with industrial production. There are others who believe that there's a natural limit to how far large language models can go. And what we really need to do is focus now on world models, that is models that are less about predicting the next word and more about mapping the world around us. And it is only through that mechanism that we're going to produce the breakthroughs in physical manifestations of AI. I obviously am not in a position to adjudicate between brilliant people on two sides of that debate. But I think that for the United States, as a matter of strategy, we have to lay chips on both bets. We need to be continuing to invest in the cutting edge of large language models, but we also need to be investing substantially in the development of these world models and of the capacity to build robots and autonomous systems at speed and scale. And I think that there's a lot of interesting work being done across those areas that go beyond just the OpenAI's and anthropics and Googles of the world.

Walter Isaacson (49:29)

The driving force, at least in the United States right now, is the private sector. We have four or five very big companies pursuing this like crazy. And in your piece you sort of say there can be a problem if the incentives of the private sector aren't actually aligned with our national interests. Explain how that could happen.

Jake Sullivan (49:51)

Well, what's really interesting, Walter, is if you think about the technologies of the last hundred years with truly transformative national security implications, nuclear weapons, the space age, the Internet, all of these basically were birthed by government and then ended up in some kind of public private partnership with. In the nuclear weapons case, it was purely government, but nuclear power then went to private industry. In the case of large language models and generative AI, the government is on the sidelines. This is the companies doing it, and it's a relatively small number of really large companies. Now, on the one hand, that's a huge national asset that the United States of America, unique amongst countries, has these big private companies driving technological innovations with all of these massive implications. It's also a risk because if you get too much concentration in the hands of too few people who are looking for basically returns to their shareholders and not necessarily entirely to the overall public interest. That's a challenge. That's why the government has to come in and manage that tension with a healthy set of tools to ensure that ultimately the development of this technology works for us rather than against us. But here we're in somewhat uncharted territory, because unlike in these past scientific innovations, where the government was in the driver's seat, here we're very much in the passenger seat. And it's going to require a new style, a new method of government partnership with the private sector. We began that work in the Biden administration. That's going to have to continue as well we go forward.

Walter Isaacson (51:31)

Why not just get out of the way? If these companies are going really fast at it.

Jake Sullivan (51:36)

Well, a couple reasons. So, first of all, I disagree with the idea that there is necessarily an entirely inverse link between speed of innovation and basic notions of safety. And let's just take railroads as one example. When the railroad industry got off and running, that was the private sector doing its thing. But trains were going slow because they didn't have the kind of switching and signaling necessary. They had different gauges for different tracks. And it was only after the government worked with the private sector to create a set of basic rules of the road that trains could have confidence to drive really fast. And I think a similar dynamic has to take hold here, too. We should not be overregulating or holding back the private sector unnecessarily, but we should also be ensuring that this technology is not subject to misuse by bad actors or does not become misaligned in ways where it's ultimately deeply harmful, either on a national security basis or a health or economic basis. So it's about getting the balance right. And that means the government does have a role, but that role has to be one of humility, and it has to be one of deep partnership with a private sector that is a massive national asset in driving this technology forward.

Walter Isaacson (52:51)

You know, you write in your piece that the US should use AI to strengthen democratic values both at home and around the world. How could we do that? And especially how could we do that when other nations might think we're weaponizing it?

Dara Masicow (53:08)

Yeah.

Jake Sullivan (53:08)

So, first of all, this comes down to guarding against some of the risks to democracy from artificial intelligence. The ability to engage in mass surveillance and repression, the ability to take the personal data of citizens and use it for nefarious purposes by governments, the ability to drive propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation. So part of it is about having a dominant position with respect to the technology so that you can ward off those very harmful risks. And the proof is in the pudding as to whether the US is prepared to work with its private companies to be able to do that. But I think if the world was built on Chinese AI, the risks of those things are much higher, because we see many of those things playing out right now, actually, in China. So that's one thing. The second thing is it goes to your last question, which is the US has to be involved in a collaborative effort with other countries around setting the rules, norms, and standards when it comes to AI, and that should be done through multiple different vectors. It should be done through democratic allies and partners, and it should be done through the United Nations. And I'm proud that the Biden administration supported the first General assembly resolution on artificial intelligence to try to lay down some basic precepts about how this technology should be used consistent with the values that we hold dear.

Walter Isaacson (54:30)

Jake Sullivan, thanks so much for joining us again. Appreciate it.

Jake Sullivan (54:34)

Thank you for having me.

Bianna Golodryga (54:37)

And finally, the Winter Olympic Games are underway in Italy. And already one athlete has flipped literally his way into the history of books. Over the weekend, American figure skater Ilia Malinin landed the first Olympic backflip in decades. First seen at the Games in 1976, it was soon deemed too dangerous and banned. Then in 1998, French skater Surya Benali defied the rules with a daring one legged backflip. She paid for it in point deductions, but secured her place as a pioneer of the sport. And now with the move once again legal, Malinin is honoring that legacy and and helping his team to victory. He is a delight to watch on the ice. All right, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from New York. What is it about Australia that just hits different? Australia is where we shared our first.

Tom Tugendhat (55:36)

Kiss, where we fell in love. That was 1813 years ago now.

Dara Masicow (55:41)

And this is what your fourth trip back.

Jake Sullivan (55:43)

Australia has this incredible way of drawing you back.

Bianna Golodryga (55:46)

The ocean, the people, the oysters. So good, so briny and delicious. And the possibility of exploring something new. Learn more about Zach and Laura's journey@australia.com and start planning the vacation of a lifetime.

Jake Sullivan (56:02)

Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. You'll hear deeply moving and honest discussions with people who have faced and are living with life altering losses. My guest is writer, poet Megan Fowley, who was married to the poet Andrea Gibson. Andrea died last summer after a years long battle with cancer. Is grief different than you thought it would be?

Dara Masicow (56:27)

Yes, it is.

Bianna Golodryga (56:29)

I don't think that I thought that.

Dara Masicow (56:32)

I would be able to have as much joy as I've had. I guess if I wasn't able to.

Bianna Golodryga (56:40)

Find joy and laughter now, I would.

Dara Masicow (56:43)

Have missed the point of Andrea's messaging.

Jake Sullivan (56:46)

Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.