The latest Ukraine-Russia-US trilateral and the UAE as diplomatic host

Summary

The Monocle Daily: The Latest Ukraine-Russia-US Trilateral and the UAE as Diplomatic Host Episode Date: February 4, 2026 | Host: Andrew Muller | Guests: Bertu Ersherlik (Senior Research Fellow for Middle East Security at RUSI), Quentin Peel (Journalist and Monocle Regular)

---

Episode Overview

This episode navigates the labyrinth of contemporary geopolitics, focusing on the renewed trilateral talks between Ukraine, Russia, and the US in Abu Dhabi, prospects for US-Iran diplomacy in Muscat, Europe’s shifting role in Middle East negotiations, the reintroduction of Germany’s AfD to the Munich Security Conference, and the UAE’s growing role as a diplomatic host. It also detours into cultural territory with an interview about a new opera inspired by Hokusai’s "The Great Wave."

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Ukraine-Russia-US Trilateral Talks in Abu Dhabi

• Participants & Symbolism
  Unconventionally, the US is represented by President Trump’s real estate confidant Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, while Russia displays “good faith” with fresh airstrikes against Ukraine's energy grid.

• Prospects for Progress ([05:14])

  • Quentin Peel: Doubts effectiveness due to US partisanship towards Russia. Sees the talks as “deeply lopsided” and notes the fundamental issue: “How can peace talks work if the so-called neutral promoter...is constantly favoring Mr. Putin and Russia, the aggressor, rather than the smaller country which is defending itself?” ([05:19])
  • Ceasefire violations underline the lack of genuine commitment.

• Sticking Points ([06:02])

  • Russia wants the full Donbas region, a goal unmet after 12 years.
  • Ukraine is willing to freeze conflict along current lines but refuses sweeping concessions.
  • Bertu Ersherlik: Suggests Russia is “playing for time,” banking on European “defense structures running out of patience” and the erosion of Western resolve. “I don’t see realistically that Ukraine is going to make that type of deep concession on Donbas. That would be…unacceptable.” ([07:19])

• Putin’s Incentives for Perpetuating War ([07:41])

  • Andrew Muller: Questions whether Putin is even interested in ending the war.
  • Quentin Peel: Suggests Putin fears the fallout of “a million casualties for not much more than we had…four years ago” and must “explain to the Russian public” the lack of gains. ([08:15])

• Europe’s Calculations ([09:14])

  • Muller: Posits Europe might quietly prefer a “status quo” where Russia’s military is depleted in Ukraine rather than threatening the Baltics.
  • Ersherlik: “It’s a question of whose interest does the status quo serve?” Notes the prevalence of “frozen conflict” as a likely scenario—“status quo management.” ([09:33])

---

2. US-Iran Diplomatic Tensions & Oman Talks

• Uncertain Talks in Muscat ([10:32])

  • Talks intended to avoid US military action are jeopardized by last-minute venue wrangling.
  • Iran pushes to keep focus strictly on the nuclear file, avoiding broader topics like its ballistic missile program.
  • Breaking Update: US may now withdraw from Muscat talks.

• Iran’s Strategy and US Leverage ([11:33])

  • Ersherlik: Sees both sides playing for time; characterizes US military build-up as “more than saber rattling.” Iran, meanwhile, is under domestic duress after months of protest suppression. “President Trump…for the US administration would be something akin to Obama’s red line in Syria…some type of military action against Iran is inevitable.” ([13:45])

• Could Iran Make Concessions? ([14:11])

  • Peel: Relates reports of Iranian regime anxiety but doubts there’s a clear US military strategy. “It is just so difficult to find a clear, coherent game plan coming out of the Trump White House. They’re all over the place.” ([15:15])
  • Ersherlik: Sees no realistic Iranian concessions that would stop US escalation: “It’s simply too late. The sanctions have been crippling.” ([15:49])

• Europe’s Marginalization ([17:15])

  • Peel: Notes Europe’s diminished role; “Europeans…are no longer really in that game.”
  • Raises the high-stakes risk of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, hiking global oil prices—potentially benefiting Russia and forcing US recalculation. ([18:30])

---

3. Germany’s AfD Returns to Munich Security Conference

• AfD’s Reintroduction ([19:38])

  • After a ban, the far-right party is allowed to send delegates, reflecting their status as Germany’s second-largest party.
  • Peel: Claims conference organizers assert this isn’t due to US pressure, but to “fairness.”

• Media & Platforming Dilemmas ([21:26])

  • Ersherlik: Frames the issue as a “fine line between engagement versus endorsement,” given AfD’s controversial positions, especially regarding Russia and Ukraine.
  • Muller: Warns that even allowing minimal participation legitimizes—and brings disproportionate coverage to—fringe parties. ([22:58])
  • Peel: Suggests “cancel culture” can backfire, emboldening populist narratives: “By refusing to let them into the tent, you’re actually giving them the status of being the real reformers.” ([23:30])

---

4. The UAE’s Emergence as a Diplomatic and Governance Hub

• World Government Summit in Dubai ([25:13])
  • Ersherlik: UAE and other Gulf states are “ambitiously trying to become the new center of gravity,” offering alternative global forums less “value-laden” than Western counterparts.
  • Focus is on “innovative governance, AI, and digital economy”—largely technocratic, “apolitical” themes.
  • However, Ersherlik notes the “gap” these events have regarding democracy and representation—unlike conferences shaped by the postwar order.
  • Peel: Highlights irony—UAE’s role as peace-broker is complicated when they’re “pouring weapons into this horrendous civil war” in Sudan. ([27:05])

---

5. Lighter Segment: Ban on Hidden Car Door Handles in China

• China Bans Hidden Door Handles ([28:54])
  • Praised (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) as a rare “win” for common sense by the Chinese Communist Party.
  • Ersherlik: “Well done, I suppose, to the Chinese Communist Party. I never thought I would say that, but it was very narrowly defined example.” ([29:11])
  • Panelist anecdotes: On unnecessary technology—app-controlled dishwashers, robot vacuum cleaners, automated hotel rooms and the pitfalls of QR code-only menus.
  • Peel: “By refusing to let them into the tent, you’re actually giving them the status of being the real reformers.” ([23:58])

---

6. Cultural Feature: Dai Fujikura’s Opera “The Great Wave”

• Interview Highlights ([32:45])
  • Composer Dai Fujikura discusses his opera based on Hokusai and his daughter Oi.
  • Hokusai’s life was “full of drama”—struck by lightning twice, lived to 90, changed his name 90 times. He declared everything created before age 70 as meaningless, aiming to be a “true artist” by living to 110.
  • The opera emphasizes human relationships, especially between Hokusai and Oi, against a backdrop mixing traditional Japanese instruments (shakuhachi) and contemporary orchestration.
  • Notable quote: “He just want to be the true artist of what he thinks a true artist is. So that really moved me.” – Dai Fujikura ([33:31])
  • “I wanted to transport us…into another realm immediately…So from bar two…shakuhachi enters. Shakuhachi…connects between the two worlds: reality and dream.” ([36:24])
  • Premiering in Glasgow and Edinburgh via Scottish Opera.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Quentin Peel:
  “How can peace talks work if the so-called neutral promoter…is constantly favoring Mr. Putin and Russia, the aggressor, rather than the smaller country which is defending itself?” ([05:19])

• Bertu Ersherlik:
  “Russia is playing for time. The element of time is always essential in negotiations, particularly in the context of a protracted and messy one such as this.” ([06:33])

• Andrew Muller, on Putin:
  “He is presented with no end of further difficulties...having to explain a million casualties for not much more than we had four years ago.” ([07:41])

• Dai Fujikura, on Hokusai’s ambition:
  “He just want to be the true artist of what he thinks a true artist is. So that really moved me.” ([33:31])

• Quentin Peel, on cancel culture and populism:
  “By refusing to let them into the tent, you’re actually giving them the status of being the real reformers.” ([23:58])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• US-Ukraine-Russia Talks in Abu Dhabi: [05:14]–[10:32]
• US-Iran and Oman Talks: [10:32]–[18:49]
• AfD and Munich Security Conference: [19:38]–[24:24]
• The UAE and Diplomatic Forums: [25:13]–[27:27]
• China’s Car Door Handle Ban & Technology Grievances: [28:54]–[31:50]
• Dai Fujikura on 'The Great Wave' Opera: [32:45]–[39:03]

---

Tone & Style Reflections

The panel blends dry wit and skepticism with deeply informed geopolitical analysis. The exchanges are brisk, often laced with sardonic humor, and at times, sharply critical of the underlying power dynamics and policy decisions at play in global affairs. The cultural segment softens the conclusion, bringing in an artist’s reflection on legacy and ambition as shaped through an East Asian lens.

---

Summary Prepared for Listeners Seeking In-Depth Coverage of Global Diplomacy, Geopolitics, and Cultural Innovation as Framed by The Monocle Daily.

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on 4th February 2026 on Monocle Radio.

[B]

Will talks about Ukraine in Abu Dhabi go anywhere? What about talks about Iran in Oman, if indeed they even happen? And the Chinese Communist Party strikes an extremely niche blow for common sense. I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts. Hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guest Bertu Ersholik and Quentin Peel will discuss the day's big stories. And we'll hear about a new opera inspired by a Japanese artwork, which you do know, even if you think you don't stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I am joined today by Bertu Ersherlich, senior research fellow for Middle east security at rusi, and Quentin Peel, journalist and regular Monocle Radio contributor. Hello to you both.

[C]

Greetings.

[D]

Hi.

[B]

That was a low key beginning. Let's see if we can kick it up a few notches. Bertra, since you were last here, I think you have been in New York City. You were there around, if not actually at the inauguration of their new mayor. Was that prospect occasioning great excitement?

[A]

It was actually. It was. I mean, I was there on holiday to visit family and we watched the inauguration on a very cold, wintry day in January from the comfort of our apartment. But there was, I think, yeah, it's very accurate to describe the environment as being one of jubilation about the possibility of what this new era under Mayor Mamdani might bring to New York and indeed US Politics more, more, more generally, I think.

[B]

How did you find generally New York, other than that? Because as has been, you know, often noted, it is not. I mean, it's a, it's a city apart from the United States. It is kind of a law unto itself.

[A]

It is and it always has been. It's that it has this very distinctive feel about it that sort of challenges any real description. It's like it's a jungle in, in one way and also incredibly disc and just works like a clock on the other hand. So I find itI personally find it overwhelming. What was interesting was that I think this was my first visit back to New York since President Trump was reelected second term. And I sensed sort of the city is kind of perched on the precipice of some type of anxiety, of uncertainty, of wanting to challenge, to contest, to say something and to be heard And I think that's why there is such a high level of excitement around Mamdani's election and what this could bring, despite the challenges that he faces. And he was subject to some criticism even on day one, which was unsurprising.

[C]

I suppose, but this extraordinary reaction from Donald Trump who suddenly said, hey, but you know, he and I get on very well. I mean, you really do wonder.

[A]

There was a love fest in the Oval Office.

[B]

It'd be interesting to see how long that lasts. Quentin, your own imminent travel plans revolve around a much more placid polity. But are you really intending to go back to Ireland again at this time of year?

[C]

No, I will wait until the sun comes out, which some people rumor that it does very occasionally. Maybe Easter.

[B]

Is there a particular reason for it? This is a family related thing.

[D]

It is.

[C]

My wife comes from Tipperary and so we, we go over every year and, and visit the folks. But also we're trying, of course, to keep our air miles down and not aggravate the problem of climate change. So we're keeping trips short.

[B]

I thought you were about to say you were going on the ferry because. Which is a, that's a crapshoot, the Irish Sea ferry.

[C]

It is what I usually take and I don't think it keeps its air miles down.

[B]

Well, we will start in Abu Dhabi, where a second round of trilateral talks between Ukraine, Russia and the United States has begun. In most previous eras, hidebound as they were by orthodox notions of propriety, protocol and basic, basic common sense, the US might have dispatched an experienced senior diplomat, perchance the Secretary of State. At these meetings, the US Will be represented by the President's fellow New York property developer Steve Witkoff and the President's son in law, Jared Kushner. Russia, by way of demonstrating its traditional good faith fanfare, the talks with further widespread airstrikes against Ukraine's energy infrastructure. The minimum forecast temperature in kyiv today is minus 20. Quentin, let's start with the usual question, which has been attending most gatherings of this sort these last four years or so. Is this going anywhere?

[C]

It is really difficult to see how peace talks can work if the so called sort of neutral promoter, that is Donald Trump and his team are actually apparently constantly favoring Mr. Putin and Russia the aggressor, rather than the smaller country which is defending itself. So they're sort of deeply lopsided right from the word go. And I fear that they still look like that. I mean, it doesn't really change. And what we saw was, you know, a so called ceasefire leading into these talks, which was supposed to last a week and in the end was broken after four days with the Russians going back and hammering the power plants in Ukraine yet again, where the temperature, of course, is minus 20 degrees centigrade.

[B]

Bertu, the impasse, or one of the impasses still appears to be this idea that Russia, before it will agree to anything, wants all of the Donbas, despite the fact it has spent 12 years trying to take it and has failed. And Ukraine being apparently agreeable to a freeze of the conflict along current lines. Is there any stick or carrot at this point which has not previously been tried, which is going to shift either of those positions?

[A]

I find it very difficult to identify what that might look like. It seems as though Russia is playing for time. The element of time is always essential in negotiations, particularly in the context of a protracted and messy one, multi sided one such as this one. And I think the Russians are hoping that European deterrence defense structures run out of patience, that there are no good options left. And it's the old argument of, well, you know, they're not interested anymore. And we've already seen the transformative effect, I think, on the US side. So if that were to translate in terms of what Europe is willing to do and concede and compromise on, that is probably what Russia is sort of holding out for. But I don't see realistically that Ukraine is going to make that type of deep concession on Donbas. That would be sort of defeatism to an extent that I think would be seen as unacceptable.

[B]

Quentin, do we also run into the issue? And I realize that I am a bit of a stuck record on this one, but why is anybody convinced that Vladimir Putin actually wants this war to stop? Because if the war does stop, of course, he is presented with no end of further difficulties or knock on difficulties. That is trying to explain to the Russian public that we have racked up somewhere in excess of a million casualties for really not much more than we had, you know, four years ago. And he also has to think of something to do with his military.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, this was a war that was really going nowhere from the start, and yet he's still apparently in denial about that. Having said going nowhere, I mean, it is causing the most unutterable degree of suffering and not just to Ukraine, but also in the loss of life of his own young men very largely. And, you know, if the casualty rates are like a million, that is a huge, huge suffering for the Russians to go through. The extraordinary thing is that where is the Backlash within Russia. Is there something grumbling out there where the mothers of Russia will finally stand up and say, look, this is insane. The trouble was I never believed he'd do it in the first place because I thought it was a stupid thing to do. And yet he has, because he is apparently determined, rather like Donald Trump, to have a legacy of saying he put the empire back together again.

[B]

I mean, is there, if we're going to get even more cynical about it? Bert, you anything to the idea that just on the quiet, a lot of Europe might be happier with the status quo, that is, the spectacle of the Russian military being smashed up in the fields of Ukraine than the Russian army massing off the borders of the Baltic states?

[A]

I mean, the question is, whose interest does the status quo serve? And you can make an argument, as you've done for many sides, I suppose, for Putin, I think, yes, absolutely. It's a question of legacy. It's also a practical question in that this war has preoccupied Europe, the United States, certainly, but to a lesser extent, as Trump has made clear, that this isn't his war, it's Biden's war, as he described it. And so we're seeing this and we've seen it across history, but this phenomenon of the sort of frozen conflict and without a solution in near sight, I think that's the most likely scenario, is some type of status quo management. And Russia has made it very clear, Putin has made it very clear that he is willing to continue to throw money and bodies at this problem because it is, as he describes it, existential.

[B]

Well, sticking with the theme of peace talks engulf nations to Oman, which is, or perhaps was, but we'll get to that. Setting out chairs and fancy coffee mugs in anticipation of delegations from the United States and Iran for talks which may forestall the military action the US has been threatening for some weeks. The talks were supposed to happen in Turkey, but Iran requested the change of venue, apparently to emphasize that it seeks only a continuation of previous talks in Oman, restricted to its nuclear program, as opposed to any other subjects, Iran's ballistic missile arsenals, for example, which the US Might think interesting. But first of all, an update in the last few minutes. There are now suggestions that these aren't going to happen at all because the US have decided, on reflection, they don't fancy going to Muscat. Delightful though I'm assured it is. So does it strike you that these may be all of a sudden UN happening? And if that's the case, did Iran intend to sabotage them?

[A]

I Think again. Time is essential here. There appears to be pressure alongside an effort, military pressure alongside an effort to keep the diplomatic pathway open. But there is a very narrow window of opportunity for diplomacy to have any type of impact, which was, in my view, going to be quite negligible. In any case, I think Iran's request, demand to switch the venue was because of this continuation of nuclear talks that were taking place last year in Oman. They want to keep the file quite narrowly focused on the nuclear issue rather than its ballistic missile program and its regional proxy led deterrence architecture. The issue, of course, is that the level of commitment that President Trump is willing to demonstrate seriously, earnestly to the diplomatic pathway, and I think the indication that because of the military buildup in the Gulf, it has struck many of us, I think, as analysts, as more than it's going to be saber rattling. It's just too substantial. And then if we take a step back and think about why we're here in this moment, the protests in Iran, where thousands of civilian protester officers were killed on the streets, not only of Tehran, but across the country, a high level of violence and oppression demonstrated by the Iranian regime. And President Trump in the famous tweet, said, help is on its way. The US Is locked and loaded. We're coming. And now I think to step back from that for President Trump, for the US Administration would be something akin to Obama's red line in Syria. And again, going back to this idea of legacy, I don't think that Trump is going to be happy to live with that. So some type of military action against Iran, I think, is inevitable. The question is, does Trump want to appear to have exhausted all diplomatic options before he takes that measure, and that appeases potentially his own base, his own domestic constituency, those in the MAGA movement who are anti interventionist? It also helps sort of rally some support across the Middle east and particularly the Gulf countries who've been reportedly lobbying Trump not to strike against Iran because of their concerns over what retaliation, Iranian retaliation might look like.

[B]

Is it possible, given all of that, Quentin, that the Iranians are sufficiently spooked that they might be willing to make dramatic concessions, or at least dramatic looking concessions, if you are of the view that they never really wanted nuclear weapons anyway and just, you know, had this thing there as a means of leverage?

[C]

Well, American intelligence seems to say they're in a fairly spooked state at the moment because of the degree of the demonstrations, that they're weaker than they've ever been before, as Marco Rubio has been saying. But having said all that, it has never seemed to me clear that there was actually a military strategy that the Americans had there. And there they faced this backlash from their allies in the Gulf, backlash from Israel, who didn't want it now and couldn't see the obvious way to really put the screws on Iran. Okay. You know, they could go for the Revolutionary Guards as the cause of the repression of the demonstrations. That is a possibility. And I suppose that that might make some logical sense. It is just so difficult to find a clear, coherent game plan coming out of the Trump White House. They're all over the place.

[B]

But do the Iranians, apart from, you know, the ability or otherwise to screw everything up by last minute changes of venue, do they actually have any leverage at the moment? Is there anything that they could imaginably offer the United States that would persuade Donald Trump to turn the USS Abraham Lincoln around?

[A]

I think the short answer is no. I don't think that the regime at this point of time is willing to make the kind of deep concessions that the Trump administration would want to see in order to turn around to back down from the military threat. And that's because the regime is at its weakest point since 1979, since the revolution, and it sees the current crisis as a continuation of last year's June 12day war. It's not as a spontaneous outburst that was led by the demonstrations in January, in December, January, but. But the regime sees itself as under sustained pressure, and it needs to find a way out to reassert deterrence against the United States and across the region, I don't believe that it will be able to come up with a comprehensive package of concessions that will seem agreeable to the United States. I think it's simply too late. I think the sanctions have been crippling on the Iranian economy. Even if President Trump and his team were to say, because I do believe that Trump understands at this point and military advisers will have demonstrated to him that there is no easy way to resolve the situation in Iran, there is no easy way to topple the regime, and certainly not through airstrikes alone. It's highly complicated.

[B]

Quentin, just finally on this one, when or if these talks happen, it is fairly obvious that not sitting at the table will be Europe. Despite the fact that German Chancellor Friedrich Motz is in the Gulf region this week. Does Europe actually have any leverage in this one? Does neither Washington nor Tehran care what Europe thinks at this point?

[C]

I think, sadly, that is probably the situation that the Europeans, who were actually critical in getting the original JCPOA deal on Iranian nuclear capacity are no longer really in that game. But I wanted to just mention one other thing. Do we not take it seriously that Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz really pretty easily and pretty drastically? And who would that benefit? I mean, if a huge, you know, hole in world global oil supplies coming out of the Gulf could be stopped off by Iran pretty damn quickly, who would benefit? The Russians would benefit. Oil price would go zooming up. Is that not something that would actually make Donald Trump stop and think of it?

[A]

Well, I think there is the threat and Iran certainly has asserted that threat. I think it would be costly for the regime as well. And I think it would be costly both financially but also in terms of its reputation across the Gulf allies, which it is keen to preserve at this moment when it's feeling incredibly isolated.

[B]

Well, to Munich now, which is where a contingent from Monocle Radio will be going next week for the annual Munich Security Conference. As previous experience has taught us, you can never be quite sure what will emerge as the dominant theme of the week. Last year it was U.S. vice President J.D. vance launching our exciting new era of transatlantic rancor. The year before the probably not coincidental murder of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. This year, one predictable talking point will be the return after a three year banishment of alternative forged Germany. The cranky far right populists who are also inconveniently, as of last year's German election, the second largest party in the Bundestag. Quentin, where are we on this admitting alternative for Deutschland or alternative for Germany back to the msc.

[C]

They are going to be allowed to send three members of the party to the conference, which is the first time in three years. And it is a deal which they insist from the side of the Munich Security Conference was not done under pressure from the United States, United States or anybody else, but really in the interests of fairness, because they are now the largest opposition party in the polls in Germany. Having said that, it does look like a concession. Last year, that speech you mentioned of J.D. vance, I mean, that was an extraordinary moment and you must have watched, Andrew, the Germans in the audience there were absolutely shocked to their socks about this.

[B]

It wasn't just the Germans. Everybody was pretty aghast, as I recall.

[C]

It was a direct attack on Germany. Democracy, you know, you are not being democratic, you have no free speech. Absolutely extraordinary. Okay, it's carried on like that from Washington, but I think that undoubtedly Germany does not want that to happen again. But you're quite right in saying, well, what is going to happen because the Munich Security Conference is always on an edge.

[B]

It is that. But the exclusion from Munich was part of what is thought of as, I'm not sure off the top of my head what the German equivalent of Cordon Santa. But this is that idea. This is that idea that applies in a few democracies that whether or not people have voted for the angry populist yahoos, we, the respectable establishment parties, simply will not deal with them. Do they get to a point though where those parties who are placed beyond the pale become so popular that they are irresistible and they have to be and should be admitted into things like the Munich Security Conference?

[A]

Well, I think it's an age old question of, you know, it sits within the cancel culture debate more broadly and it's that fine line between engagement versus endorsement. Right. So allowing them in does not necessarily mean in any way that the forum endorses the views represented by the party. Hugely controversial, both because of the concerns over foreign intervention and JD Van comments last year, but also from a security and intelligence sharing point of view as well, given the AfD's views on Ukraine, Russia and their particular platform about narrowing Germany's military support and backing for the Ukrainian cause, the proximity to the Russian agenda. So part of this, I think the announcement of their inclusion is tried to clarify that while the participants, three or four will be at the main forum, they will not be allowed to join any of the smaller closed door, smaller discussions. So that potentially is a form of drawing that line. But it is, yeah, it's this age old question of how far do you allow this kind of representation or agency to be included without crossing that line into well, this doesn't represent our values. This is not what the Munich Security Conference was meant to declare to the world.

[B]

Because that right there is the risk, isn't it Quenton, that even if you only admit a small number of such an organization into an event like this, they will find a way to make it all about themselves. There will be disproportionate media coverage of the fact that they are there at all. And this is, this is a version of the trap that I think the media keeps walking into when covering populists of the far right and the far left that because they seem exciting and controversial, everybody's like, oh let's put them on television and 10 years later they're running the country.

[C]

I think that is a weakness of the media. Certainly. I do think that there is a real problem with this cancel culture of saying these people are too extreme and you know, most of the party of the countries of Europe now have that problem with extremists and saying, you know, by refusing to let them into the tent, you're actually giving them the status of being the real reformers. The real reformers.

[B]

You're underpinning their narrative.

[C]

Yes, absolutely. And so that's the problem quite why they want to go to the Munich Security Conference, which I think, Andrew, as you know, I went to for about 20 years every year, and it is horrendous. It is held in far too small a venue with an enormous number of people and all these American security people all over the place protecting their people. So you can't get from A to B. Yeah.

[B]

Last year it took roughly five minutes of the first morning for our entire schedule to be unraveled by the fact that JD Vance wanted to move about 20 meters. Therefore they shut the entire city to allow that to happen. Just before we move off this one, Bertu. Also occurring this week, as listeners to our radio station will be aware, is the World Government Summit in Dubai. Monocle has been broadcasting from there all week with due acknowledgment that we're not any longer short of diplomatic and security conferences in this world. You could probably spend an entire year at them without actually going home. But is an event like that becoming a valuable new perspective, especially as the uae, as we've been discussing earlier, becomes more of a diplomatic epicenter?

[A]

Yes, I think it does matter. Having said that, I am also guilty of sort of conference hopping on the circuit, but it's the UAE and the Gulf more and more broadly, I think, are very clearly ambitiously trying to become the new center of gravity. And part of this narrative of it's more than a narrative now, but the counter west or the thinking about the global order in different terms, from the point of view of the global south and those that do not have a seat at the UN Security Council, for example. But what's interesting about these types of conferences, the one now in the uae, of course Qatar hosts a number of them as well, is that they tend to not be as value laden or kind of value driven as the conferences in the United States and in Europe that represented the post war international order. So the one now in the UAE sort of focused on innovative governance models, public service delivery, AI, things like this that are not in the digital economy, so not necessarily political or vulnerable to politicization, I suppose. And it's part of how the Gulf is trying to position itself. But having said that, there is a shortcoming of democracies in the region that are now hosting these types of conferences and the very deliberate agenda setting around themes of artificial intelligence, technology and futurism. I think there's a gap there between that which is apolitical and democracy, inclusion, representation that other types of conferences, including the Munich security conference was designed to, was aimed to talk about and to endorse really well, fight, play, lip service.

[C]

To saying we want peace, we want an end to conflict. What chance do you think that anybody is going to mention the word Sudan in the UAE where the UAE is pouring weapons into this horrendous civil war and they're at the same time chairing a conference like this which purports to be promoting peace and. And resolving conflicts.

[B]

Well, finally on today's show, we do have before our final item for discussion, a music musical interlude chosen once again by our producer, Chris Chermack. Hit it.

[D]

You.

[B]

A hilarious pastiche of baby, you can drive my car by the Beatles sung by somebody called Brian something. Was it Brian? I'm Brian Coyne. Big hello to Brian Coyne, if you're listening. Attempting to channel the travails of a certain make of electronic vehicle from which we are going to China. And while praise for the Chinese Communist party should obviously be ladled carefully, credit where due for their latest edict, a ban on those stupid counterintuitive hidden car door handles commonly associated with those horrible vehicles made by that irritating man. China has abolished them, not as might have been preferred because they are annoying and silly and because car door handles were a problem that we had as a species solved, but because of safety concerns. But a win is a win. Bertra, first of all, are you in fact a massive fan of those annoying stupid hidden car door handles which never work quite the way you think they're going to when you try to get in or out of your way?

[A]

I would like to play devil's advocate and say I am a fan of this to challenge you, Andrew, but I am in fact not. I have fumbled around far too many times trying to find my way into one of these vehicles. And you know, well done, I suppose, to the Chinese Communist Party. I never thought I would say that, but it was very narrowly defined example.

[B]

Yeah, we're absolutely going to clip that out of context and play it all the time. Quentin, there is, I think, not just in this specific example, but in many other. There is this basic human urge to fix that, which is not. I mean, the car door handle as we had come to understand it. It was fine. Everyone understood them.

[C]

Yeah, absolutely. My favorite Story is from my niece in County Galway, where my brother in law is a taxi driver and has an electric vehicle as his car. And one day I lent them my car, which was a rather more old fashioned version. And my niece said, daddy, Daddy, have you ever seen these wonderful handles? They were the window handles for winding up and down the window. She'd never seen one before. Hey, what was wrong with the window?

[B]

I mean, we just wanted to ask in closing whether either of you had any other pet peeves of this sort. The unnecessary thing, the unnecessary technological development. I may have spoken from this chair before of having to try very, very tactfully to cut short an extremely excited dishwasher installer who was trying to explain to me how the dishwasher could be made to communicate with my phone. And the poor bloke really, really into this. And I, I didn't really have it in me to explain to him there are literally no imaginable circumstances in which this would be of interest to me or I genuinely believe any sane human being.

[A]

I agree with that. We're going to stick with sort of household appliances. I am not a fan of these electric vacuum cleaners, these, these automated vacuum cleaners that can roam the house and you can control it by your phone. Mobile app. They get stuck everywhere. They get stuck under the sofa. The dogs don.

[C]

Did they kill mice?

[A]

Wow. That would be useful, I suppose. No, not my experience.

[B]

Quentin, are there any technological innovations within the last, I don't know, half century or so that still vex you somewhat?

[C]

Six years ago, I had the extraordinary luxury and joy of staying in Raffles Hotel in Singapore.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

And when we arrived in our room, the lady who was showing us to our room showed us that everything in the room operated only through an Apple iPad. The curtains wouldn't open, the lights wouldn't turn on. The air conditioning didn't work unless you could work the Apple. We just gave up. We didn't move out, mind.

[B]

Yeah. And also while we're on that subject, QR codes instead of room service menus.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

Like, what the hell's going on there?

[C]

Absolutely. I can never get my phone to focus. Focus on a QR code.

[B]

Is that how they work? Quentin Peale and Bertu Ershelik, thank you both for joining us. Finally, on today's show, there are not many 19th century artworks so notorious as to be immortalized as an emoji. But Hokusai's the Great Wave Off Kanagawa is no ordinary artwork. The woodblock print is instantly recognizable and as powerful an image. Now as it was when it was created in Edo era Japan. Now the great wave and the story of its creator Katsushika Hokusai and his daughter has been turned into an opera by the composer Dai Fujikura and librettist Harry Ross. Monocle's Sophie Monahan Coombs rather spoke to Dai, the composer at Midori House and began by asking why Hokusai's story is such rich material for the opera.

[D]

The Life of Hokusai. I mean he had a very dramatic life. To just give you a taste, he was struck by lightning twice. It's crazy, but it's in history. And also he changed his names how many times? 90 times or something like crazy. He lived until around 90 years old. 90. And around that time in Japan not many people lived above 60. What really struck me the most for me, two things I think is one of his manifesto that he has written. When he was in his mid-70s, he said that anything he drew before 70 years old, it's meaningless and only start making sense or something valuable for him. Work after that and then he goes on and then he finishes. I guess he was aiming to live until 110 years years old. Why that's the important part for me is that he wanted to live until 110 to be a true artist. I mean it's not to be rich or any of that stuff. Like he just want to be the true artist of what he thinks a true artist is. So that really moved me.

[A]

How do you go about transforming a print and also the life of the.

[D]

Artist that made that print into an opera? And.

[A]

And the sound is a sort of combination of contemporary opera with some more traditional Japanese elements. And I wonder how did you go.

[D]

About the composition and what did that process look like in this story? For me it's interesting that Hokusai's most contemporary biography was apparently written 40 years after his death. So that actually means. Means we don't really know how accurate that is. But also there's a lot of holes. In other words, we don't know so much things, but we know many things. But also we don't know a lot of things. So that was absolutely perfect for me. So that we can really inspired by historical facts like the lightnings twice. And then also he had a grandson who always had a gambling debts. So then Hokusai was selling his prints and his art to pay his grandson's debt. That kind of things. Also that the most important things for us about this story of our opera is that the story between Hokusai and his daughter. His daughter Oi, we don't know when she was born, we don't know when she was. When she died. But the interesting part is that she was Hokusai's daughter and she married to somebody who was an artist apparently. But she left him to go back to her dad to work with her dad. Basically this was like a studio of Hokusai, which in my view, in our view, his daughter Oi was pretty much running this studio. So basically she was also. Well, maybe a bit of my imagination, it's true, I don't know. But I think she was a kind of business person as well as fantastic artist. She was really helping him to running the studio, basically. And then all the financial part, I think. And he was very famous at the time, although he was very poor at the same time. So those were the. Those are the things. The human relationships are very important.

[A]

So maybe you could talk a little bit about the sound.

[D]

And you are combining contemporary opera with more traditional Japanese elements.

[A]

So what was the composition of that like?

[D]

As a composer, I think, writing an opera, I mean, obviously I love telling a story anyway. I mean, as a person, I guess. But as a composer, this is amazing because I can tell a story in music. I can do this with my music because it's my composition from beginning to end. So that's absolutely amazing for me. So for this, the Great Wave opera, every sense I feel, in a way, yeah, Actually every sound I hear, it's connected to sensation that I feel. That's how I am. So everything we see, we feel is in the music. So for example, this opera starts from Hokusai's funeral, of course, the funeral. It's raining. That's classic. I'm sure it was raining. So we hear raining from the orchestra, meaning there's some staccato glissando, harmonics, all those things which is obvious to me, which is raining sound. But before that, I wanted to make that the listener. When I say listeners, that includes me. I wanted to. To try to transport us listeners into another realm immediately. Not little by little, but immediately right from the beginning. So from the bar two, by the way, bar one is just holding chord. So basically like five seconds later that we have shakuhachi, which is Japanese bamboo flute, which is very popular instrument among the Japanese instrument. I think there's many instrumentalists of shakuhachi in UK as well as in Europe. Anyway, shakuhachi enters from battle. Shakuhachi, in my opinion, it connects between the two worlds. Two worlds, meaning reality and Also in dream sequence or in the fantasy or maybe the. The world of death. Because that's the time of the funeral. Shakuachi. Start playing. So Hokusai is dead and his daughter is singing. His daughter had two roles as a daughter as well as the business runner of the Hokusai studio. So she's. She has two sides. She expresses there and then there's a shakwach playing. So probably that's connecting the two worlds. So that's. I thought to use shakwachi that way. And then also it comes again in at the end. And also of course, the musically thunder. I mean, that's something I was so looking forward to compose because that's. I wanted to. I had full orchestra in front of me. I can do thunder. You want the drama? Yeah, absolutely. That's. I'm in the right business to write opera.

[B]

That was Dai Fujikura in conversation with Monocle's Sophie Monaghan Combs. The Great Wave is produced by Scottish Opera and is showing later this month in Glasgow and Edinburgh. That's all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Bertu Ershelik and Quentin Peel. Today's show was produced by Chris Chermack and researched by Anneliese Maynard. Our sound engineer was Lily Austin. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.