Is the US-Ukraine security deal ready to be signed? Plus: Republicans face the behaviour of ICE

Summary

---

The Monocle Daily – Episode Summary

Date: January 26, 2026
Host: Andrew Muller
Panelists: Elizabeth Braw (Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council) & Tom Rivers (Former ABC London Correspondent)
Special Guest: Joel S. Witt (Former US State Department Official)

---

Overview

This episode centers on escalating security and political developments in Ukraine and the United States:

• The impending US-Ukraine security deal and prospects for peace negotiations.
• The political fallout in the US after the killing of a Minneapolis nurse by masked border patrol agents, challenging Republican Party unity on law enforcement.
• Security responses to sabotage of undersea Baltic cables, aviation carry-on regulations, and insights from Joel S. Witt’s new book about the US failure to prevent North Korea’s nuclearization.

The tone is incisive, occasionally wry, with sharp exchanges and candid commentary.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Is the US-Ukraine Security Deal Ready to be Signed?

Main Takeaways:

• President Zelensky stated that a US security agreement for Ukraine is “100% ready,” awaiting time and place for signing ([03:27]).
• Zelensky also suggested 2027 as a possible date for Ukraine’s EU membership.
• Zelensky’s optimism is interpreted more as strategic nudging than objective assessment.

Panel Analysis:

• Tom Rivers ([04:19]–[05:16]):
  • Sees Zelensky as “running out of road,” trapped by military and diplomatic realities.
  • Key stumbling block: Russian demands for the remaining 10% of Donetsk and Luhansk, which includes crucial high ground.
  • "The map’s gonna look very, very close to Minsk II, if you roll the clock back a few years."
• Elizabeth Braw ([05:29]–[06:58]):
  • Argues Zelensky’s optimism is aimed at influencing the US, especially under leaders like Trump.
  • “He knows this is what he has to do in order to nudge things along and also maybe to put a little bit of daylight between himself and Vladimir Putin, who never expresses optimism about anything.”
  • Despite ongoing negotiations, Russian attacks, including on civilian infrastructure, continue.

On Trusting US Security Guarantees:

• Tom Rivers ([07:12]):
  • Ukraine has little choice but to trust US guarantees, given Western fatigue and resource constraints:
    “You’re going to run out of human beings eventually. You’re going to run out of money, too.”
• Elizabeth Braw ([08:18]):
  • Zelensky’s insistence on “respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity” likely leaves space for a frozen conflict, since an actual full restoration is unlikely without a ceasefire.
  • Notes “the paradoxical, difficult, complicated and frankly, depressing” negotiations, as fighting continues during talks.

---

2. Republicans and the Behavior of ICE After Minneapolis Shooting

Context:
Minneapolis nurse Alex Pretty was killed in the street by masked US border patrol agents. The incident causes rifts in GOP unity over law enforcement and guns.

Panel Analysis:

• Tom Rivers ([10:32]–[11:51]):
  • Notes a significant backlash, even among Republicans: “About a half dozen now, Republicans, Senators that are saying, look, this is not looking good.”
  • Public dissatisfaction: “56% of American voters nationally do not like the way ICE is enforcing its pressure in Minneapolis right now.”
• Elizabeth Braw ([12:53]):
  • Surprised by the array of Republicans (from centrist to MAGA) voicing concern.
  • “Nobody could contest the notion that this has gone too far. If you see, if you consider what sort of news is coming out of the US at the moment, you see somebody being shot by masked agents and you wonder what’s going on in America. These people realize it’s not a good look.”

Notable Quotes & Exchanges:

• [14:39] Andrew Muller:
  • “Why are they wearing masks, though? Shouldn’t they be accountable to the people, not the other way around?”
• [15:33] Tom Rivers:
  • “There will be consequences. But again, I don’t think anybody, the vast majority of Americans don’t like this, but they want to know, how do you get to the problem in Minnesota?”
• [16:14] Elizabeth Braw:
  • On Trump’s new conciliatory tone:
    “He has clearly noticed that a large chunk of the American public is horrified. And America’s partners in the world…are horrified. And on top of that, major companies based in Minnesota have spoken out.”

Cultural Insight ([17:54]):

• Tom Rivers describes “Minnesota Nice” — a quietly accommodating but firm regional attitude — to explain local political shifts.

---

3. Securing Undersea Baltic Cables: Finland, Russia & NATO

Background:
Undersea cables (for electricity and data) have become targets for alleged Russian sabotage.

Panel Analysis:

• Elizabeth Braw ([19:49]–[21:30]):
  • Praises Baltic and Nordic pragmatism and collaboration, focusing on Finland’s new surveillance center proposal.
  • Notes a persistent dilemma:
    “What are you going to do if you see a vessel that is behaving suspiciously? Are you going to detain it even though it’s outside your territorial waters?”
• Tom Rivers ([21:36]–[22:35]):
  • Data is mostly carried by undersea cables, not satellites: “It’s above 5% satellite, it’s 95% under the water.”
  • Disrupting cables is a low-cost way to cause international havoc.
• Elizabeth Braw ([23:01]–[24:58]):
  • International law (UNCLOS) limits responses to sabotage outside territorial waters.
  • "Our governments are doing is being nice, law abiding governments while other governments and entities violate away…with joy, but certainly with enthusiasm, with energy."
  • Laws were designed when it was assumed cables were too valuable to attack; that assumption is being upended.

---

4. Aviation Security: New Liquid & Laptop Rules at Heathrow

Overview:
Heathrow’s adoption of 3D scanners is making the 100ml liquid rule obsolete for carry-on bags.

Panelists’ (Tongue-in-Cheek) Reflections:

• Tom Rivers ([27:08]):
  • Enthusiastic about not needing to remove liquids or laptops: “We’re rolling the clock back and that’s only, only a good thing.”
• Elizabeth Braw ([28:03]):
  • Shares her ingrained airport habits: "I have this plastic bag permanently in my carry on suitcase…"
  • Recalls how airport security changed after the 2006 transatlantic bomb plot.
• Tom Rivers ([29:12]):
  • Skeptical about the true effectiveness of the previous safety restrictions.

---

5. Interview: Joel S. Witt—America’s Failure to Disarm North Korea

Main Insights:

• Wishful Thinking & US Overconfidence
  ([32:48] Joel Witt): “If you look at US foreign policy over the past 40 years, there are a number of instances where we've overestimated our ability to achieve our goals.”
• North Korea's Nuclear Ambitions & Missed Chances
  ([35:07]): “By the time I engaged with them, that was definitely the case…they were seriously interested in nuclear weapons because of their experience during the Korean War.”
• Lost Opportunities for Denuclearization
  ([36:10]): The 2019 Hanoi Summit was the “most serious opportunity”—but Trump “didn’t have patience to sit through the whole summit, and he left direction.”
• Now Impossible?
  ([37:12]): “No, it is not possible anymore to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear arsenal…the opportunity to achieve denuclearization has passed us by.”
• Future Prospects
  ([38:34]): If Northeast Asian arms race escalates: “May result in all the countries having nuclear weapons, not just North Korea, but South Korea and Japan.”

---

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• On Ukraine Negotiations:
  • “Zelensky knows this is what he has to do in order to nudge things along…and also maybe to put a little bit of daylight between himself and Vladimir Putin, who never expresses optimism about anything.”
    — Elizabeth Braw [05:29]
• On Political Fallout in Minnesota:
  • “Nobody could contest the notion that this has gone too far. If you see…somebody being shot by masked agents and you wonder what’s going on in America.”
    — Elizabeth Braw [12:53]
• On Undersea Cables & Law:
  • “What our governments are doing is being nice, law abiding governments while other governments and entities violate away…with enthusiasm, with energy.”
    — Elizabeth Braw [23:01]
• On North Korea:
  • “No, it is not possible anymore to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear arsenal…because North Korea isn’t really interested in engagement with the United States anymore.”
    — Joel Witt [37:12]

---

Notable Moments & Timestamps

• [04:19] – Tom Rivers on Zelensky’s “lack of road” and negotiation parallels to Paris peace talks.
• [07:12] – US guarantees for Ukraine: “You’re going to run out of human beings eventually.”
• [12:53] – GOP dismay at ICE’s optics after the Minneapolis shooting.
• [21:36] – The vulnerability of undersea cables and Russia’s “shadow fleet.”
• [27:08] – New airport scanners and the end of the 100ml rule.
• [32:48] – Joel Witt’s perspective on US foreign policy miscalculations.
• [37:12] – Witt’s judgment: denuclearization of North Korea is now impossible.

---

Episode Flow

• Warm banter about maritime broadcasting and books-in-progress.
• Deep dive into Ukraine’s diplomatic state and Zelensky’s maneuvering.
• Sharp pivot to US political crisis and Republican disunity after a deadly ICE incident.
• Regional security focus: Baltic cables, Russian interference, and international law headaches.
• Lighter interlude on airport baggage—a slice of travel nostalgia and frustration.
• Sobering expert interview on the US’s failure to stop North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.
• Spirited, collegial but critical conversations, delivered with humor and urgency.

---

This summary captures the core themes, arguments, and notable moments of the episode. All major sections include key attributions and timestamps for reference.

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on 26 January 2026 on Monocle Radio. Is the United States really going to underpin the future security of Ukraine Is perhaps and at last US citizens being shot dead in the street by masked agents of the state. The line MAGA won't cross. And are you looking forward to taking more than 100 millilitres of liquid aboard as carry on? I'm Andrew Miller. The Monocle Daily starts now. Foreign. Hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily, coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Elizabeth Broh and Tom Rivers will discuss the day's big stories. And we'll hear from former U.S. state Department official Joel Witt about his new book chronicling America's failure to stop North Korea from getting the bomb. Stay tuned. All that and more. More coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I am joined today by Elizabeth Brough, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, author of Goodbye Globalization and by Tom Rivers, former ABC Radio London correspondent. Hello to you both.

[B]

Hello.

[C]

Hello, Andrew.

[A]

Tom, we'll start with you because I think it's the longest interval of the two of you since you were last here. You were recently doing some old school broadcasting from a ship.

[C]

I love it, Andrew. I did 39 years of UPI, NBC, CBS, and most of it ABC. And now I'm having fun. I am having fun. I spent Christmas Day out on the MV Ross Revenge, which is the spiritual home of Radio Caroline, the only vessel that was once a former pirate radio ship anywhere in the world. And we broadcast on Christmas Day for the first time live from the ship in 37 years. It is now a charity, Andrew, you got to get out there. Get out there this summer. I'll tell you why. Over the past few years, they've been raising money. It is now a charity. They've raised half a million dollars or pounds, which sounds like a lot, but to get it into dry dock, you need a lot more. So they're looking for matching lottery funds to do a lot of important work on the hull, get it back out to the Blackwater Estuary and continue broadcasting weekends from the ship.

[A]

We could do the Monocle Daily from the ship. I mean, we did it last week from the atrium of a cultural center in Nuuk. We can take this anywhere.

[C]

You must go. Then they have. They got dongles. You got Wi Fi. You would be at home there.

[A]

We'd have to get guests out in rowboats or on a helicopter or something. I mean, that's someone else's problem. I can look into that. Elizabeth, you are, of course, interested yourself in maritime affairs. You have finished a book about same. And by finished, I don't mean read one, I mean written one.

[B]

Yes, I have written one that has now gone to the editor, and I'm eagerly anticipating whatever changes the editor suggests. But it has gone to the editor editors, and it's undersea war, and it turns out that it has turned out to be a very timely topic. So I'm pleased about that. Despite not liking wars at all.

[A]

Well, indeed, and we will be discussing matters of that character later in the show, but we start in Ukraine and either cause for optimism or President Vladimir Zelensky attempting to feign as much. During a visit to Vilnius at the weekend, Zelenskyy said that a US agreement on providing security guarantees to Ukraine is 100% ready, awaiting only confirmation of a time and a place to sign it. Floating further reasons to be cheerful, Zelenskyy suggested 2027 as an appropriate date for Ukraine to be granted of the European Union, and that, to remind everyone, is next year. Tom, first of all, this follows these negotiations in Abu Dhabi over the weekend, trilateral, that is Ukraine, Russia and the United States. Is Zelenskyy actually serious about all of this, do you think, or is he trying to nudge things along?

[C]

I think he's running out of road. This thing has its own, if you will, tempo, its own rhythm. You think back to, as an American, the Paris peace talks, they eventually end up around a T. And I think we are at that point right here, right now with Zelensky. And again, there's scheduled meetings again, I think, for the first week in February, we see how that plays out. I guess the sticky point again is going to be the Russians want they've got 90% of Donetsk and Luhansk and they want 10% more. And it's that critical 10% that are that's on the higher ground and in the defensive positions for the Ukrainian forces. So we'll see if that can be formulated and shaken out. But the map's gonna look very, very close to Minsk, too, if you roll the clock back a few years and see exactly where we are today and the loss of many, many soldiers on both sides.

[A]

Elizabeth, doesn't all this, though rather assume, and this is, I know a point that various people have raised when we've discussed this, this all does rather assume that Russian President Vladimir Putin actually wants this war to Stop.

[B]

Yes. And the reason why Zelenskyy seems so optimistic is that he knows that Donald Trump likes optimism. He remembers putting forward various points that were not so good for Ukraine and then being told that he was being pessimistic and unhelpful. And so he knows this is what he has to do in order to nudge things along and also maybe to put a little bit of daylight between himself and Vladimir Putin, who never expresses optimism about anything. And indeed continues his forces continue to attack Ukraine, have continued to attack Ukraine, including on this very day, as peace negotiations continue. And those attacks include, as I think we have all heard, attacks on energy infrastructure, which is not permissible, but they are taking place anyway, because who is going to punish him? Nobody on the Russian side. And that's where we are. And that's why Zelensky is trying to show that at least he is being constructive, even though he is in a really precarious position. Because Ukrainians are freezing, they are tired, they are exhausted. And it's, of course, the result of Russian actions.

[A]

Tom, on that precarity of Ukraine's position, if you were President Zelensky, or indeed any given Ukrainian right now, how trusting would you be in any security guarantees provided by this U.S. administration?

[C]

I think you don't have a choice. What is the alternative, in the words of Trump? You may not like Trump, but he says, if you want this thing to roll on ad infinitum, both sides are going to lose 25 to 30,000 soldiers each and every month. You're going to run out of human beings eventually. You're going to run out of money, too. Look at Europe, look at the precarious situation of some of the governments in the uk, in Germany, in France, floating in a sea of red ink. But Starmer seems to think he can throw £3 billion each and every year for the next 100 years into Kyiv, it's not going to happen.

[A]

Zelensky still, however, Elizabeth, holding the line on saying respect, that Ukraine's territorial integrity must be respected, which I suppose is what he has to say, because that's what they've been fighting for for nearly four years now. But his choice of words there is interesting, because when he says Ukraine's territorial integrity must be respected, that doesn't necessarily mean we absolutely insist on having it all back now. Does.

[B]

Does not. And I think what he may have in mind, trying to read into his mind, but what he may have in mind is something like a frozen conflict where both sides agree that, well, agree to disagree, and that may be the best that Ukraine can get at the moment. But the challenge in these peace negotiations is that they are taking place even as war is being waged at the same time. Ordinarily, what happens is, as you know, Andrew, because you've covered many conflicts, what ordinarily happens is first you have a ceasefire. And during that ceasefire, peace talks are negotiated so that one side can't continue attacking the other side even as they're trying to agree on terms of that peace. And that's why these peace negotiations are so paradoxical, difficult, complicated and frankly, depressing to watch. If you're somebody who hopes that the victim won't be even more victimized, which is what's happening at the moment.

[A]

Well, to the United States now, where in the days since Minneapolis nurse Alex Pretty was shot dead in the street by masked border patrol agents, many high profile conservatives who were once absolutely fundamentalist defenders of the right to bear arms are having a rethink. Though Pretty was carrying a pistol and was licensed to do so, it turns out that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution doesn't apply to liberals standing up to oppressive state machinery, much as American conservatives forever claim that they are or one day might. However, at least a few Republicans have apprehended that the optics of Pretty's death are difficult to spin, however gamely. Some are trying in the last couple of hours. Chris Maydell, who was seeking the Republican nomination for governor of Minnesota, has withdrawn his bid. Tom, this development is all the more interesting given that Maydel was also representing, literally the ISO agent who killed Renee Good. His statement is I cannot support the national Republican stated retribution on the citizens of our state, nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so. Is something shifting?

[C]

Well, I think it is. The optics are such and there are a number, about a half dozen now, Republicans, Senators that are saying, look, this is not looking good on anybody's, on anybody's party watch. I was looking at a recent poll. Before Saturday, we haven't had one after 56% of American voters nationally do not like the, the way ICE is enforcing its, its pressure in, in Minneapolis right now, even though the bottom line is to, you know, the difficulty of not having the state and federal working together vis a vis. Let's look at Florida where they are doing that. They've been dealing with about 40,000 individuals that are now being deported in Minnesota. A lot of those individuals before they could be questioned if they were in custody. They are, they are released. ICE has to go out and look at addresses, knock on Doors difficult, tough job. I'm from Minneapolis. I know that. And it's, and it's something that really, really is, is difficult. So we're going to see what happens. The bottom line is, we were talking, Liz, earlier before the show, is the ongoing fraud investigation, which is going to take months to take place, but it looks like there were fingers in a lot of pies, let's put it that way.

[A]

That's a. But that's not that's a separate issue to the fact that you have these unaccountable people in masks shooting American citizens in the street.

[C]

Oh, yes, exactly. Exactly. And we get into the nitty gritty of that and the fact that a 9 millimeter semiautomatic handgun was there and you can have concealed weapons in Minnesota. You cannot interfere, though, in a police operation if you are armed. You cannot go into a bank with a gun and try to rob it, because that is committing a felony. So, yes, there are gradations of the law which have to come to the fore.

[A]

He didn't have the gun on him when he was shot. That does seem beyond dispute. Elizabeth Is it significant, though, that some of the voices that have spoken up against this from the Republican side, including Governor Phil Scott of Vermont, Marjorie Taylor Greene, extraordinary. Senator Thom Tillis, even the National Rifle association have stated that they are not terribly happy about this.

[B]

It is extraordinary to see these Republicans of various belonging to different parts of the Republican Party. MTG is obviously dyed in the wall. MAGA Republican now having left Congress, but she belongs to that crowd. Somebody like Thom Tillis, a bit more of a centrist. Also, most recently, Mike Pence, the former vice president, has also spoken out. So that suggests that they think this has gone to. It not only suggests, they clearly think this has gone too far. And nobody could contest the notion that this has gone too far. If you see, if you consider what sort of news is coming out of the US at the moment, you see somebody being shot by masked agents and you wonder what's going on in America. These people realize it's not a good look.

[A]

Well, but people can justify it and are justifying it. Tom, what is stopping somebody like Vice President J.D. vance or Stephen Miller just from saying this is absolutely terrible, it shouldn't happen. Agents of the state should not be wearing masks. That weird little guy Greg Bevino should not be strutting around dressed like an SS colonel.

[C]

Okay. I mean, you could go down that road. Do you then just ignore, as I say, you're mixing apples and oranges. But do you want to Go down the road and say ignore all the fraud.

[A]

No, I'm not saying ignore all the fraud.

[C]

I'm just saying how do you, how do you get that, how do you get the quote, unquote, bad apples if you don't have a human presence knocking on doors? If you come up with a solution, that would be brilliant, but we're not there.

[A]

Why are they wearing masks, though? Shouldn't they be accountable to the people, not the other way around?

[C]

They, again, that, that is something that maybe, maybe they should not be wearing the masks. I don't, you know, the difficulty right now is you have a. Protesters that are harassing them.

[A]

They're allowed do that within reason.

[C]

Within reason. But when you have, by some definition, incitement to create more disturbances by calling ICE Gestapo, then you're in a situation where. Let's up the political rhetorical ante, shall we?

[A]

But you can't shoot people for calling.

[C]

No one is saying that.

[A]

I think some people kind of are saying that.

[C]

I can't. Well, there was a small man probably fitting in one van, I can't believe.

[A]

And one of the people in that van would be Greg Bevino, who was saying in the last couple of days, if you keep calling us names, there will be consequences.

[C]

There will be consequences. But again, I don't think anybody, the vast majority of Americans don't like this, but they want to know, how do you get to the problem in Minnesota? How do you get the corruption that may be a problem in Ohio, something you'll be talking months from now in California? How do you deal with it? How do you ferret this out?

[A]

Well, in the last hour or so, Elizabeth, Donald Trump has posted quite appreciatively of Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz. He said, quote, we had a very good call and we seem to be on the same wavelength. This is altogether more conciliatory from Trump. Do you think he has sensed that something is shifting and this might be getting away from him?

[B]

Yes, he is not ideological, I think we can all agree. And he has clearly noticed that a large chunk of the American public is horrified. And America's partners in the world, and indeed countries that are not America's partners, are horrified. And on top of that, major companies based in Minnesota have spoken out. And once this starts affecting business, I think that is also a data point that he pays attention to because he clearly sold himself to the public on this notion of being businessmen and improving America's lives. Well, if, if Minnesota based major businesses are saying this is not good, then one would think that he would pay attention. And that seems to be the case. It is extraordinary that he's having this conversation with Tim Walsh now rather than, let's say, before this entire operation was rolled out. Imagine if they had coordinated. It would never have come to this. But it has come to this. America's reputation is in tatters around the world and it's too the detriment of all the wonderful Americans we know, and there is one here in the studio, but to the detriment of the reputation of the United States, which is the home of so many kind, generous and so on. People talk to you.

[C]

A new phrase coming from Minnesota. There's a concept known as Minnesota. Nice.

[A]

You heard this?

[B]

Yes.

[C]

All Scandinavian backgrounds. And you kind of. You kind of.

[A]

I've been to Minneapolis and indeed St. Paul.

[C]

I'm familiar with it and it's very much so. Yeah, well, you kind of, you know, you, you turn the other cheek and you are very, very, if you will, if you will, understanding of other people until, until you do something really nasty to them and then they turn and they say enough is enough. And that's where a lot of Americans, a lot of Minnesotans are right now. Enough is enough. They want this solved. They don't want people shot in the streets, but they do want the actions of a number of individuals in the state apparatus of Minnesota to be investigated, to be dealt with. We do not want almost a thousand whistleblowers to be discounted in the Minnesota Human Services department. They're very slow to burn, these Scandinavians of that lineage, but boy, you don't want to cross them because they get very, very angry and the Viking comes out of them very, very quickly.

[A]

Well, to Finland now, which is taking steps to address the security of undersea cables in the Baltic. Said cables which convey electricity and information between the countries of the region are a favorite target of Russia's so called shadow fleet off books tankers which can transport sanctioned oil and which can also every so often completely accidentally drag their anchors along the seabed on which the cables lie. On New Year's Eve, for example, the Finnish coast guard boarded a ship sailing from St. Petersburg after a telecoms cable was damaged. Russia, as usual, denies everything. Finland now proposes to establish a maritime surveillance center with other Baltic Sea states and the European Commission. Elizabeth, are you frantically having to tap out an extra chapter to cover this?

[B]

I wish I could say that I predicted it, but this is just the last latest step that the countries in the Baltic Sea region are taking. They have been so impressive since this saga of accidentally Cut cables and pipelines began, but now, almost four years ago, actually around three years ago, and they have tried to think of various ways in which they can patrol the cables and pipelines better to get a complete picture of what's going on. And they work together in so many different ways. And now the Finns have thought up yet another way. This is how friends work together. They think pragmatically about what they can do and then they do it. And it's interesting that all these countries, all the Baltic Sea countries, minus Russia, which is a Baltic Sea country, through Kaliningrad, all these countries are members of NATO, but they didn't go to NATO. They said, well, what can we do amongst ourselves in our little group to make sure that we better protect the cables? And I don't think it's going to make a massive difference, because it always comes down to what are you going to do if you see a vessel that is behaving suspiciously? Are you going to detain it even though it's outside your territorial waters? But it is a sign of how good it is to have Finland as part of the NATO family of nations, and also the other countries, of course, and a sign of how being pragmatic gets results pretty quickly. Very quickly.

[A]

Tom, having acknowledged Russia's denial that they're doing this, Russia is totally doing this, aren't they?

[C]

Well, we saw what if we could go back maybe a month, maybe six weeks. We had some, quote, unquote, suspicious Russian cargo vessels in international waters, but very close to British waters. And again, some suspicion had been laid upon what their duty might potentially be if push came to shove. I find it fascinating. I had to look this up. I knew it was very high. But if you want to create havoc, and if you are in a heavy geopolitical conflict, data transmissions internationally, we all think, well, it's all satellite these days, isn't it? It's not.

[A]

It is not.

[C]

It's above 5% satellite, it's 95% under the water. So if you want to create all kinds of havoc, you start digging up, or in the case of somebody dealt with Nord Stream 2, if you want to deal with it, you go down and you deal with it, and you can create a heck of a lot of problems for not a whole heck of a lot of bang.

[A]

Elizabeth, in the sort of the naval warfare circles that you've been moving in, has there been any conversation to the effect that actually Russia's Shadow Free Fleet, rather, has been treated with a somewhat light touch? I mean, we've seen a Few boarded and a few impounded and a few corralled. But what we haven't actually seen is any threat along the lines of if you don't stop doing this, we will start sending them to the bottom.

[B]

So what happens almost every single day and especially on days when a shadow vessel causes some kind of trouble, is that citizens in our countries say, and commentators and people who maybe haven't the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea suggest that oh, we, our authorities should board this vessel, they should sink this vessel, they should arrest the crew and so forth. That is not allowed under anclos. ANKLOS gives coastal states very specific rights and their rights are limited to their territorial waters. Outside the territorial waters they have very limited rights. So what our governments are doing is being nice, law abiding governments while other governments and entities violate away violate ANCLOS with I don't want to say with joy, but certainly with enthusiasm, with energy. And so it is actually Andrew, it's a fundamental dilemma. What do you do as a Western liberal democracy when you see other countries violate international rules? Do you say oh the rules based international order is over, my government is also going to then also going to violate international law? Or do you say our government believes in the rule of law, we are going to remain committed to our international treaty obligations and this is the dilemma our governments face on a daily basis.

[A]

Just a quick follow up on that. Elizabeth, Is there any talk to the effect that as is often the case, maybe these laws and these conventions have been superstition preceded by events that they were drawn up for a world in which nobody really thought about how important undersea data cables could become and how vulnerable they would be to deniable operations like Russia's shadow fleet.

[B]

So Anklos was signed in 82 and came into force in 94. So cables were and pipelines were very much part of daily life then. But the assumption was by all the countries that signed and adopted ratified enclos that it was in everybody's interest that nobody harm these cables and pipelines because they are important to everybody on the planet. And by and large they stuck to the promise. There weren't suspicious cable cuts, all cuts of pipelines or damage to pipelines. And it wasn't because every country was virtuous, but it was the case that every country knew that if we do this then the system may collapse. And now it seems to be the case that some countries in the world don't care whether the system collapses or they think that western countries will be nice and Law abiding and essentially keep, remain the guardians of the system while these law breaking governments get to continue breaking rules. And it is a daily dilemma.

[A]

Well, to London Heathrow now, where that infuriatingly abundant class of nitwit who appears to derive some perverse morbid glee from impeding the progress of their fellow passengers through airport security is going to have to devise new ways of wasting everybody's time. Thanks to an upgrade of the heathrow scanners, the 100 millilitre limit on liquids in cabin bags has been scrapped, sparing the inefficient and annoying the necessity of sorting all their nonsense into little plastic sacks and. Or having airport staff at the limit of their will to live explaining to the thousandth idiot that day alone what the process is and why. Yes, I have spent quite a lot of the last month waiting for planes. Tom. Are you excited about this? Are you all excited to take items bigger than 100 millilitres on the plane?

[C]

Yeah, exactly. You know, I traveled just recently, a couple of weeks ago to Dublin and I'm so used to the regulations, maybe I could have, I could have brought in 2 liters of Guinness on the way home, who knows? But there's these new scanners, they're called the CT computed tomography scanners and they're 3D and they say they're the bee's knees. And we can, we can even your laptop now, how many times. No, we all travel a lot. Get that laptop out of your bag.

[A]

You don't have to do that anymore.

[C]

You don't have to do that anymore. So it's, you know, we're rolling the clock back and that's only, only a good thing.

[A]

See, Elizabeth, regular listeners may be aware that I'm something of the fundamentalist on carry on baggage. I think pretty much all of it should be outlawed. I think perhaps a small bag and a paperback book and check in everything else. Are you an insistent packager of items of 100 ML or more or less?

[B]

I am. And I have this plastic bag permanently in my carry on suitcase and I refill it when I get home and then I travel again. And it has become so instinctive that I take it out even when I travel to airports that installed the new scanners before Heathrow did, which are quite a few. I remember when they first arrived at Amsterdam and I was told, you don't need to take anything out of the bag. And I thought, ooh, but we have to remember. I remember. And I think, but I think since we're all above the age of 20. We also remember what it was like before the liquid bomber made this necessary.

[A]

Because the 2006 airliner plot.

[B]

Exactly, exactly. And before that, I don't know what you traveled with, but I remember traveling with shampoo bottles that were the size you buy them in at Boots. And then this one terrorist changed air travel forever. And now, as you said, Tom, it's changing back.

[C]

And that was an individual that was. I remember going to Detroit and that changed everything internationally. But, yeah, it was like that, too. And you're going, here's my 79 at that time, Pennsylvania shampoo bottle. If you want to keep it, keep it. You know, it was infuriating. It really was.

[A]

Were you ever persuaded just finally on this, Tom, of the actual need for this stuff? I'm not decrying that. You know, Obviously things like 911 happened. The transatlantic bomb plot of 2006, had that gone ahead, would have been horrifying. This was a plot to blow up seven airliners at once over the Atlantic. But were you ever convinced that all of this stuff was actually doing any good?

[C]

Probably not. But, you know, we've all, you know, if it looks like a water bottle, if it smell and tastes like it probably is a water bottle, you know, we've all been there. Interesting. Taking the tube in today, guys. I was thinking back to a different story. Kind of a parallel kind of a storyline, though. You remember back in 2005, the London attack, we all covered it in some way, shape or form. And at that time, they were saying we were going to wire up the underground so you could have cell coverage in the tube.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And then, remember, we had the attack, and they says, no, no, no, no, no, we cannot have that anymore. Because potentially, you could detonate a device with a cell phone underground somewhere in the tube network. And now, lo and behold, all these years later, 20, 20 years later, 21 years later, we have cell coverage underneath parts of the tube which are underground. So that whole argument which was made back then has been thrown out the window.

[A]

I mean, there are other arguments against having cell coverage underground, which is that it just makes the tube trip even more annoying than it already was because people keep insisting on using their phones.

[C]

We've lost that argument. Everybody and their mother. I used to do this when I used to go to ABC. There were seven seats across from me every morning on the District 9. I'd look at them, and invariably, of those seven seats, there would be probably six on their phones. One might be reading a book, and maybe if you're lucky, one would be staring and actually doing some independent thinking. So, yeah, that boat has sailed. We're gone.

[A]

Well on that.

[B]

Dystopian reading books is oh, that's good.

[C]

That is a minority practice.

[B]

But I think my amateur survey from recent tube trips compared to a few years ago suggests that people read more books these days. So let's, let's compare notes.

[A]

Well, you're, you're on a fancier stretch of the tube than I am. Elizabeth Braw and Tom Rivers, thank you both for joining us. Finally, on today's show, since the United States became the first nuclear armed state in 1945, every subsequent accession to the club has jolted the international order at least somewhat, but few, if any more than when North Korea tested its first nuke in 2006. This wasn't a total surprise. The paranoid hermit kingdom had withdrawn from the nuclear non proliferan, non proliferation, easy for me to say, non proliferation treaty in 2002, harrumphing that the restriction infringed its dignity. Efforts to dissuade Pyongyang from taking this step were led by the United States, whose sticks and carrots clearly went unheeded. That failure is chronicled in a new book called Fallout by Joel S. Witt, a former U.S. state Department official who negotiated directly with North Korean officials during the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. I spoke to Joel earlier and began by asking if wishful thinking, thinking had been a persistent problem.

[D]

Well, yeah, that's one way of putting it. Wishful thinking. Another way I would put it is that if you look at US foreign policy over the past 40 years, there are a number of instances where we've overestimated our ability to achieve our goals. And of course, we underestimated and didn't understand the countries we were dealing with. And I think whether it's Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, you know, North Korea fits into that mix.

[A]

This is one of the many things that's interesting about your book, though, because you have seen it up close, you have dealt with North Korean officials up close. And this is not a spoiler to our listeners, but the literal first line of the book is in the spring of 1999, I was held hostage at a remote North Korean army base near the mountainous border with China, which I have to say is a way to keep people reading. What's your sense been of what North Korean officials are like up close? Because as you'll be aware, North Korea, more than most countries, is presented in the media as this absolutely impenetrable and monolithic almost occult compound.

[D]

Yeah. Well, you know, that is, of course, a misconception. I think that, sure, you know, the officials I dealt with, the government officials, are committed to their system of government, as are most of the people. So one of the cardinal rules for an American visiting North Korea is don't get into political discussions with them. Focus on what you need to do. And if you do that, they are very goal oriented. If their leadership tells them, we want you to do this, we want to accomplish this with the Americans, they will move forward. And that's exactly what happened during that inspection when I was held hostage. But through the help of North Korean government officials from Pyongyang who were with me, I was released.

[A]

But especially early on, did you have any sense that the North Koreans were almost hoping to be talked out of building nuclear weapons or perhaps bought out of building nuclear weapons, that this was a thing they were doing in the hope they could trade it away?

[D]

Well, I think, you know, by the time I engaged with them, that was definitely the case. And that was the 1990s and the Clinton administration before that. I think they were seriously interested in nuclear weapons because of their experience during the Korean War when their country was devastated. And so they were seriously interested in them to protect them against, you know, another war with the United States. But that all changed in the early 1990s when they lost their two major allies, Russia. The Soviet Union collapsed. China was reaching out to South Korea, and they had to find another patron. And that's when they shifted towards engagement with the United States.

[A]

But have there been options, serious options, for denuclearization of North Korea since they developed actually functional and now deliverable nuclear weapons? The two presidents your book criticizes most, both Obama and Trump, which suggests that the miscalculations have been bipartisan.

[D]

Well, yes, there have been serious opportunities. You know, there are a whole bunch of them. The most serious opportunity was in the Hanoi summit, President Trump and Kim jong UN in 2019. And that came very close to resolving every issue that had separated the United states since the 1990s, ranging from establishing diplomatic relations to starting negotiations for a peace treaty to replace the temporary armistice that ended the Korean War. And that was a very serious opportunity. But unfortunately, President Trump, being who he is, he didn't have patience to sit through the whole summit, and he left direction.

[A]

Do you still think then that there is an imaginable offer that the United States and other interested parties could make to North Korea now that would persuade North Korea to completely abandon its nuclear weapons?

[D]

Well, this is, of course, an important question. And I think one of the important things I try to bring home to the reader in the book is that we had multiple opportunities for decades, decades, but now there's no opportunity to achieve that objective because of our failure in the past. So what I would say is, no, it is not possible anymore to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear arsenal. First, because the arsenal has grown so big because of our failure to stop it. But secondly, because North Korea isn't really interested in engagement with the United States anymore. It's more interested in its relationship with Russia and China. And as you know, neither one of them is a friend of the United States. So I think the opportunity to achieve denuclearization has passed us by.

[A]

Is there any prospect, you see that this may be one of those things that gets unraveled, as sometimes happens in human history, and I mean unraveled in a good way, by the confluence of just the right leadership on both sides happening to align at the same time. And I mean, I realize with the leadership we have, that's a long shot. One of the more eyebrow arching revelations in your book is that President Trump, when he arrived in office in 2016, didn't fully understand that there were in fact two countries on the Korean peninsula.

[D]

Well, yes, of course, you know, I can't predict the history. And sometimes when I give book talks, people say, well, what do you think it's going to be like 10 years from now? And you know, I can't predict the good scenario. I can predict a bad scenario, which is we're in the middle in Northeast Asia of an escalating on arms race that may result in all the countries having nuclear weapons, not just North Korea, but South Korea and Japan. So that to me is the most likely scenario. But you're right, the leaders could change in North Korea and the United States. They could decide, well, gee, it's more important to establish a better relationship. But at the end of the day, it's going to be very hard, hard for North Korea to give up what is now a large nuclear arsenal. Much harder than when I was in government when it was only working towards building a nuclear weapon.

[A]

That was former U.S. state Department official Joel S. Witt. His new book, Fallout the Inside Story of America's Failure to Disarm. North Korea is out now. And that is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Elizabeth Brooks and Tom Rivers. Today's show was produced by Carlotta Rebelo and researched by Annalise Maynard. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The daily returns at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.