A (2:15)

I'm sure your bosses will be delighted about that. And that's not all. The global excitement continues. Back in London, we're joined by Monocle's contributing editor and regular Daily host, Andrew Muller. Good evening, Andrew, how are you over.

D (2:27)

There, I'm very well, but I'm sitting here in my usual place in Studio one at what I assume is the usual time, but it's just me and there are no guests. And I'm having that vague feeling of have I come in on the wrong day? Is it in fact Saturday or Sunday or something?

A (2:43)

No, no. You're in as always, Andrew. You're in the right place at the right time. Let's kick off the show, though, and all eyes really on New York city, the, the unga, as we mentioned at the top, the 80th edition. Tyler, listen, you know, right, back in the old days, you've proved your news chops, covering all sorts of global jamborees. Do we need this? At this moment, everyone's talking about the shadow of Trump. Obviously, there's lots of naming convention discussions happening, but it's still good that people get around tables, get in a room and talk to each other, even if they're barracking each other or not.

B (3:18)

Listen, we do believe in face to face, certainly when it comes to diplomacy, certainly when it comes to, of course, the General assembly, there's much symbolism around it. It is, of course, indeed this, this global jamboree coming together. Is it at the right time? Listen, I mean, September, symbolic looking ahead to, of course, the next year, setting the tone as we come out of Q3, that sort of rush to the, to the end of the year. Yeah, of course it should happen now and then, I think off the back, of course, what has been an extraordinary week, 10 days, also not just in US politics, but I would say just in US affairs in general. So is this also a little bit of a reset? Is this also maybe a good halo moment for America, that it's also not just all inward and domestic looking and only focusing on the US but actually there are big international things that also happen in New York. New York is home, let's say co home to the United nations with Geneva down the street from here as well. This is where the action happens. So I think also having a bit of an international spotlight, of course, the government aircraft, great time for plane spotters to be hanging out around JFK at this time. Newark as well. It's. I think it's essential.

A (4:32)

Well, look, Emily, you're an expert in mediation. The, the importance of, of getting around the table has never been, it's never been more, more important. But as Tyler alluded to there, what's the state of the discourse, particularly on the other side of the pond? It's not great. And it doesn't lend itself, does it to, you know, mediation. It doesn't really seem to lend itself to discussion because people are pretty blinkered in their approach. But maybe that makes these events all the more important.

C (5:00)

Yeah, I would tend to agree that the General assembly does serve its purpose. It's often dismissed as just a series of SPEEC heads of state trying to make their case. But it is also a mirror of global fault lines, if if nothing else, and global priorities. And this year's General assembly comes at a time when there is a crisis within the multilateral system. There has been a Trump shock, if you want to call it when it comes to the UN funding, not just directly when it comes to the UN budget, but also indirectly through humanitarian aid support, et cetera. So Secretary General Guterres only has 15 months to go as Secretary General. So there is this soul searching taking place in New York within the UN system. How might the UN refocus its priorities at the same time as it has less resources and frankly fewer staff in the next coming years as it has to lay off thousands of people?

A (5:53)

Well, let me ask you that, Andrew Miller back in London. Lots of talk about the reform agenda, whether that's before the end of this sort of incumbent's run. And I alluded at the top of the show to Annelaine Baerbock saying the institution itself, not just its funding, but its future, was up for question. Andrew, think about with your foreign desk hat on. Can you think of examples of big unwieldy institutions that have had effective change ups? How do you deliver that in an expedient fashion? It's not easy. Presumably this is like running a huge massive global corporation. Where should we look, Andrew, to see a path forward for how the UN could be more effective?

D (6:30)

I'm not sure, unfortunately, there actually are any other useful examples because there isn't another organization like the un. I mean, I tend to look at it the other way and just not so much agony about what's wrong with it and what needs fixing, but just marvel every year that it still actually functions at all. The way it is set up does make it effectively unreformable because you would need to get all the superpowers to agree on reforms and it's in all their vested interests that the UN isn't reformed, because any reform of the UN would. Well, the people who want to reform the UN want to make it more powerful and they want countries to be. They wanted to make it more possible to coerce its members to submit to an agreed state or an agreed Slate, rather, of global rules and conventions, which is a nice idea, but the United States is never going to agree to that. China certainly wouldn't. Russia obviously wouldn't, and I don't think the big European powers would either. So though it's frustrating the UN and it's constricted in what it can do, it might actually be about the best that is feasible.

A (7:45)

Tyler, we often come to this conclusion, don't we? We talk about, like, the crisis in Western liberal democracy and say, maybe this is just as good as it gets. What about Trumpism, though? You alluded to the US Discourse earlier in this, this kind of crazy News Week or 10 days, is there an opportunity for the UN and other organizations like it to exploit that narrative? Or does his shadow, especially when it's on the doorstep of literally, Trump Tower, does it loom too large and preclude even that?

B (8:15)

Well, I was actually wondering, I've never looked at the lease. Is it a leasehold on that plot of land? Because we know that, that Mr. Trump is rather attracted to strips of land that are close to the sea and in this case, on a river. So could this be a moment also to cash in? I mean, maybe the actual. The UN Says we're off to Geneva. I mean, could they exploit it that way? And it's not crazy. I mean, maybe, maybe just a little bit on a rainy Monday at this end of Switzerland. But why not? I mean, maybe they could say, look at, there's just, there is so much noise. Does it really make sense that we're, that we're in this city? Of course, home in many ways, but it's. Of course, we can't forget that the UN does have many homes around the world. I mean, of course, the UN is very present in Vienna, as we know, the UN is very present in Nairobi. So could there be an argument maybe a modern UN needs to move around in a world when we see sort of also a sort of a multipolar system as well? So is there real estate play right there? And could someone snatch that up? I mean, can you imagine UN building, you know, a new Trump something? Why not? If they can make money out of it and then maybe effectively manage around the world?

C (9:27)

And it's a real consideration now that the Secretary General has to essentially cut costs and to even keep as big of a presence in Geneva is an uphill battle, because Switzerland is quite famously a relatively expensive country. And the same goes for New York and the U.S. so the UN is very seriously looking at expanding its presence in places like Nairobi or Other loc where the bills will be a bit lower.

A (9:52)

Well, it's so interesting always to watch how these weeks unfold. What are the resolutions that are tabled? What are the kind of smoke and mirrors to try and move these narratives forwards? And I wanted to ask you and Emily, I'll start with you about this little bit about Austria. There's been lots of talk about boycotting and the sort of the effectiveness and the efficacy of a boycott in a cultural context here. This is around Eurovision and Israel's participation or not. What's your take as a mediator? Is a boycott unhelpful because it kind of sets out the red lines before you even get started? Or is there a. Is there a. Is there a place in the Emily worldview for a well judged boycott if the time is right?

C (10:30)

So I'll give you a very cheeky yes and no answer.

A (10:33)

So, absolutely, he's a media to people. That's it.

B (10:37)

He's a Finn as well. And we're talking about Eurovision. So this is very loaded, Tom.

C (10:41)

Exactly. I'll come to Eurovisions. I have very strong opinions on it, including the voting system, but no, I mean, it comes down to the function that sanctions are meant to serve. So whether it's a more of a norm setting, not establishing a president function, then absolutely, they can serve an important function. Usually cultural sanctions are perhaps less effective unless they're coupled with other more, let's say, heavier sanctions being on the economic or security or political arena. And often you need a bit this double grip, to quote Professor Wallenstein, that you need a viable domestic opposition that can use international shanks, sanctions to their own benefit rather than the ruling regime. For instance, in a country being able to say, look, hey, they're really out to get us, they're all against us. So it's not a black and white question. But when it comes to the Eurovisions, I think there are a lot of interesting dimensions here and I think the fact that Spain, for instance, has said that they would withdraw their participation from next year's Eurovisions if Israel were to.

B (11:43)

Which would be a shame.

A (11:45)

We can't, we can't, we can't, we can't.

B (11:47)

Listen, Spain's always.

C (11:48)

They bring the party to.

A (11:50)

They really do, just on the language, because this is a senior Foreign Ministry official, I think, in the Austrian delegation who said that cultural boycotts are dumb and pointless. Is. Is that helpful language? I mean, I guess it's refreshing candor, but I don't know, with Trump, maybe we have had too much candor.

C (12:05)

Yeah. I don't think that's going to help Austria to convince other European countries to not withdraw from the competition. I think this General assembly from the European Broadcasting UN to take place in December will be vital. Say, my home country of Finland, our public broadcasting company has said that it will only decide after this General assembly in December whether or not Finland would participate. And actually just coming back to whether, you know, these sanctions are viable or not, I find it interesting, this conversation, whether Eurovisions are political or not. I was just refreshing my memory as I was coming here on what the EBU said when they asked Russia not to participate in 2022. And they said, in light of unprecedented crisis in Ukraine, the inclusion of a Russian entry in this year's contest would bring the competition into, quote, unquote, disrepute. And one could question in this context whether there is a precedent that has been established when a country is violating international law, whether that would in fact bring the country into another case of disrepute. But I think we'll only find out in December what the EBU is.

A (13:06)

Also, Tyler. I mean, anything like Eurovision is political, isn't it? You can't separate it clinically and say, this is a cultural happening, politics is eliminated. There's politics around nationhood and gender and political ideologies. It's always run through it.

B (13:22)

No, absolutely. And of course, it's always what's defined. And of course that. That discussion has become more pronounced over the last few years as well. And maybe you, of course, hinted at the voting. That is a whole other. You know, that's. That's really sort of. It's one for Andover, a foreign desk documentary series. We could do a whole write up and lead up, because that, that is definitely a complete conversation. But, yeah, look at. I think that when you look at just the emotions that. Around this, I think that's what's interesting. This is. This is incredibly raw and there's. You're always sort of wanting on one side, of course, wanting to vote for the home team. How do you feel about, you know, the neighbors? Of course, you know, if they're cozy neighbors, but if you don't like your neighbors, then that's. That's something, of course, completely different. And then I think just. Emily, your point just now, though, about, you know, kicking Russia. Look, we had this weekend, I mean, we had, you know, in Russia, we had them reinstating their very own version of their former former Soviet empire version of Eurovision. And of course, and that was also really about expanding the tent as well. That you had Vietnam that you had many other countries also attending. And in fact there's a very good. Sky News did a very good piece on it over the weekend. It was actually, it was just a great piece of journalism where they were just showing various contestants entries sort of being doorstepped and then just really good, good old fashioned Soviet bloc just, you know, having the mic yanked away. The journalist sort of being strong armed, you know, out of the camera. So hugely political. And I'm really fascinated to see. Maybe we should be taking this program down to Geneva to the ebu. Listen, we're talking about you back in Geneva again, right? I think we should be buying a little bit of land in Geneva because. Or maybe, Adam, maybe the UN can partly bunk up with it with the European Broadcasting Union down there, but I'm feeling good about Geneva.

A (15:21)

Andrew Miller, just quickly on this one. I know you're not just a fan of global geopolitics. Eurovision, your first there every year, aren't you, with your clipboard marking at home. What do you make of this one?

D (15:31)

Well, I'm heartily in favor of the boycotts, but not for the reasons that the boycotters are. I'm in favor one because it will obviously make the Eurovision Song Contest shorter, but I'm also in favor of it because I am somebody who, I think, like any sane ordered citizen, derives their amusement from the Eurovision Song Contest, not from the actual music for all the scandal and brouhaha attending it. So there's months and months of entertainment in this and I'm looking forward to it tremendously.

A (16:01)

He said insincerely, Tyler, we have to let you go. You've got a pressing dinner engagement.

B (16:06)

I have a dinner to. To get to up the street, but I.

A (16:09)

Have you got an umbrella?

B (16:10)

I've got. I've got a very nice bucket hat and I've got a Land Cruiser. I'm going to be good. I can make my way to.

A (16:15)

You'll need the bucket cable if I need you on the way out. Tyler, thanks for being with us. Tyler will be back around the mics at some point tomorrow here in Zurich. Emily is. Stay with us here on the Monocle Daily. Yes, you're listening to the Monocle Daily here on Monocle Radio. I'm Tom Edwards live in Zurich. Emily is here with me and he's sticking around, but Andrew Muller, we're going to bounce back to you in London. We're going to get some insights from on the ground in New York City. I gather you are going to chat to our man at the Unga, is that correct?

D (16:54)

That is absolutely, entirely correct. I am going to do that right now, in fact, because as we were discussing earlier on the date on the daily half Zurich, half London, the current and 80th annual gathering of the United Nations General assembly, or Unger, is shaping up as one of the more consequential such conclaves of recent years. As heavily foreshadowed, several generally staunch allies of Israel, the uk, Australia, Canada and Portugal have chosen this moment to recognise Palestine. France is expected to follow. In another important Middle east related development, a Syrian president, Ahmed Al Sharar is attending for the first time in almost 60 years. And today the Security Council is holding emergency talks on the recent buzzing of Estonian airspace by the Russian Air Force. So I'm joined now from the UN in New York City by the usually Washington D.C. based journalist and regular Monocle contributor, H.J. mai. H.J. first of all, before we get into what is actually going on at Unger, what's it actually like being there? What can you see from wherever it is they cor. The journalists.

E (17:59)

Yeah, so currently I'm sitting on the fourth floor of the General assembly, just outside the assembly hall on a balcony and talking to you. And yeah, what I've been seeing this morning here in New York is really somewhat interesting because, you know, I see a lot of, you know, faces who are smiling. It feels almost like a school reunion here on the first day. You know, delegates are roaming the campus here at the un, you know, run into old colleagues, you know, catching up. So it's really interesting given, you know, of the current state of global affairs.

D (18:26)

Well, let's talk about the headline, which is the recognition of Palestine by that handful of, you know, big to medium powers. Important to remind our listeners that most of the UN already long since recognized Palestine. More than, I think 2/3, possibly as many as 3/4 of UN members had already recognized Palestine. So how big a moment is this?

E (18:50)

Well, I think what has changed is now that Western countries have followed suit. I mean, you mentioned the countries who announced their recognition yesterday, including the UK obviously. And there's some other countries who will follow this afternoon, or that's at least what's expected. And leading the way there is France, who together with Saudi Arabia will host a meeting here at the General assembly that's focused on a two state solution. So while you're right that a lot of UN countries and other parts of the world, you know, have long recognized Palestine as a state, you know, the fact that now Western countries, especially European countries, are following suit is, I think an important development, even though it's mainly symbolic. I think there's some, you know, there's, you know, some push behind this to finally make something happen and, you know, finally find a solution for that conflict that's been, you know, dragging on for decades in the Middle East.

D (19:45)

Well, we should note, of course, that among the countries which still are not aboard the Palestine bandwagon is very much the United States. And indeed, indeed the United States before this UN General assembly made a point of refusing a visa to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian delegation. The point there is probably not subtle, but what was it really?

E (20:09)

Yeah, I think, I mean, you just mentioned it. I think, you know, this was just another, you know, basically very public exercise of telling, you know, people where the US Stands and that's on the side of Israel. And I think, you know, you know, not issuing those visas to President Abbas and other Palestinian members of the Palestinian Authority, I think, you know, clearly shows that, you know, I know that the attack, you know, that Israel launched a couple weeks ago within Qatar, you know, has not really, you know, there's some unhappiness about that within the White House. But, but the US Is very clear that the US is, is an ally of Israel and that's where they stand. And so, yeah, they will not recognize Palestine here at, at this General assembly or any time going forward, it seems.

D (20:59)

Would it be untowardly cynical, do you think, to suggest that a lot of these countries which are recognizing Palestine are doing so not out of any great concern for the plight of the Palestinians, are indeed ambitions for a two state settlement, but out of domestic political concerns? When you look at Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and France, these are all countries with broadly center left governments who have spent the last two years getting yelled at by their own base for not doing more.

E (21:30)

Yeah, I think it's not too cynical to say that, but I think there's still some real concern about what's going on. You know, the humanitarian crisis, especially in Gaza, that plays into it. But I think you're absolutely right. I mean, you can't ignore, you know, the domestic politics within those countries. You know, you see the pressure within, you know, those populations, you know, you mentioned Canada, you know, where you see protests, you know, pro Palestinian protests and clearly, you know, those governments recognize that. So I don' think it's too cynical, but I think, you know, I think both things can, can be true at the same time. I think there's the, the concern for the situation, the, the humanitarian, humanitarian crisis in the Middle east, but but at the same time, yes, those leaders definitely look at what's going on within their borders and, and you know, want to be ahead of, of potential pressure, you know, and, and step, you know, basically be on the right side of history, if you want to call it that. And, and you know, think about domestic politics. Absolutely.

D (22:27)

Just finally, H.J. we were talking at the top of the show about the baked in dysfunction of the un, especially the Security Council, given that are the Security Council's emergency talks today about Russian violation of Eastern European airspace going to go anywhere remembering, of course, that Russia wields a UN Security Council veto.

E (22:49)

It doesn't look like it. I mean, last time I checked, they were still talking. But as usual, you fully expect, I mean, Everybody, including the U.S. in this case, condemned that incursion into Estonian airspace by Russian fighter jets. And the Russia representative flatly denied those accusations, said no Russian jet ever entered Estonian airspace. And so, yeah, no, it's just once again, an exercise in staking your positions. But this has no real consequence after all, as you mentioned, because of Russia's veto. Right.

D (23:24)

H.J. mai at the UN General assembly in New York City. Thank you for joining us. You're listening to THE Daily.

A (23:37)

Yes, you're with THE daily, Andrew Muller in London. Thanks, Andrew. Stay with us, Andrew. We want to continue to hear more of your insights. Still with me here in Zurich, Emily Isso Ajo as well, a program coordinator for peace mediation at Etiha Zurich. Emily, I want to ask you about Afghanistan in a moment. We'll move on. But just it's interesting hearing Hjmi there perched outside the main hall. One of the things that strikes you from what he says is substantive movement on a lot of these really big critical questions. Yes. Looks unlikely. It doesn't seem there's the appetite, I mean, to reflect on what we said at the top of the show. It just reflects, doesn't it, the gravity, the scale of the challenge to meaningfully move these things on. Even at a forum where you've got all the leaders in one place at one time.

C (24:26)

Absolutely. And there's a huge discrepancy with, for instance, even this movement or momentum to recognize the state of Palestine by what happens on the ground. If you compare those images from New York or on the ground in Gaza, the West bank, it's quite starking. But I think, and then it was just pointed to in the conversation that the UN is in a way held hostage by its own design. If you have permanent Security Council member states who get to have a veto power that in number of contexts means that the UN does not allow itself to have a full mandate to really try to meaningfully seek solutions. So unless there is meaningful reform, that issue will not be solved. Or at the same time, another approach is to try to forge increasing consensus amongst the permanent five Security Council member states so that they can give UN Envoys a full mandate to do their work in a meaningful way. But again, in the current context, that's more wishful thinking than reality.

A (25:27)

Yeah, a fair bit of wishful thinking knocking around this week. Let's talk a little bit about Afghanistan. I'm sure people have seen Donald Trump's pronouncements talking about the Bagram air base and one of his shouty all caps messages, you know, bad things are going to happen. Well, not really hinting, kind of stating pretty bluntly that he thought U.S. troops groups could should return in some shape or form that has not landed well, it's safe to say domestically Taliban spokesperson sort of rubbishing the idea. What happens, Emily, when he makes these kinds of interventions in these kinds of geographies, it doesn't move the needle constructively. I think it's safe to say no.

C (26:08)

It doesn't move the needle constructively. That might be part of the strategy. So I see two options here. So one is really one of these statements coming from President Trump where he tries to keep everyone a bit on their toes, making statements about Canada or Greenland. Now about the air base Bagram in Afghanistan, perhaps without a serious intention of making it happen. That's one possibility. Another possibility, and there are some sources that say there have been even serious discussions around this air base issue in Afghanistan, is to try to see how he can perhaps balance China's influence in the region, not least within Afghanistan, or perhaps cater more for a domestic audience. It's always good to criticize your predecessor for all the wrong things he did. And Afghanistan being a prime example in foreign policy in terms of President Trump's view. Or it can be all about, again, exerting American, let's say, dominance on the international arena and again trying to keep everyone else a little bit guessing. What will the US do next?

A (27:10)

Well, to that point, Andrew, let me bring you back in here as one of our most seasoned Trump watchers back at Midori House.

D (27:15)

Else.

A (27:17)

Well, this is somewhat controversial. Is Donald Trump actually more effective than. Well, certainly I and many give him credit for as a, as an operator at this level. You know, Emily's alluded to a couple of possibilities there. Is it about sort of jockeying for position with the, the Chinese he's certainly pretty good at appealing to his base, but in terms of playing his domestic audience, is he actually, you know, this Afghanistan case is a good example. Is he actually quite adroit at the way he does it? Or is. Is that me being. I don't know, is that me willfully misreading the situation?

D (27:47)

Andrew, I think you may be overthinking this a great deal more than President Trump does. I have been reading around this today, and what I cannot discover anywhere is any coherent idea of what he wants Bagram Airfield back for. It may be, as Emily suggests, that is some sort of bulwark against Chinese outreach into the region, which is not the most ludicrous idea, certainly, that Donald Trump's ever had, but it's just the astonishing ingenuousness of him, or disingenuousness. I never know which of those is right, in that the withdrawal from Afghanistan on Joe Biden's watch, admittedly an undignified shambles. Also admittedly, was Joe Biden following through on the deal Trump had done with the Taliban. It was Donald Trump that agreed that US forces would leave Bagram Airfield in the first place. Um, it's very, very hard to say why this has suddenly struck him as a thing he needs to do. And for all, with all recognition that there is almost nothing so far we've seen that he can do or say that will actually displease his base. The one theme of his decade plus now in national politics has been no more stupid wars. And in fairness to him, there has not been a large scale new US deployment on his watch. You know, give or take, threats he's currently making against Venezuela, Greenland, Canada, the Isle of Man, Legoland or whatever is going to be next. So I think it's not impossible that even among his base, if he announced, saddle up, we're going back to Afghanistan, there might be a certain amount of, sorry, we're doing what now, Andrew, it's.

A (29:38)

Enough to drive a man to drink listening to you, and I mean that as a compliment. Which leads me somewhat inelegantly to our final, highly critical talking point, which is that researchers like, I think, at the University of Bath back home in the UK have conducted a highly scientific study involving German students trying to speak Dutch and their proficiency was significantly enhanced if they were inebriated. Emily, is this the secret to why you always sound so eloquent when you join us on the radio? I know you're offend, so I'm assuming there's some hard drinking somewhere in your background.

C (30:19)

Well, and I have to say, Monocle Cafe has great cocktails, but unfortunately they're not provided for radio guests. No, I mean, anecdotally I would fully confirm this. You know when you go for a drink with international friends and you know when I try to speak a little bit of German or Swedish for that matter, all of a sudden, after maybe one drink, you feel like, oh, I can do this. I think in the research they point to this not being a secret medicine of any sort. It just lowers your anxiety, so it doesn't improve your skills per se, but it kind of gives you that extra push to give it a go. So you still need to, unfortunately, learn the grammar, you need to learn vocabulary, but it gives you that extra push of kind of perhaps lowering that anxiety associated with speaking. But it does help, and I'll give it a go.

A (31:04)

It's the old Dutch courage. Andrew Miller, as an Australian, you're still trying to get to grips with the English language? Of course. Tell me, do you knock back a few Castlemaine 4X's before you slide into your chair at Midori House?

D (31:16)

I. I do not. I have a dreadful fear of attempting to broadcast while under the influence. I. I can. I am concerned, Tom, that it might all go a bit less Patterson. But I. But I do. I do think there is something to this study, though, and I will pass on a tip from a friend of mine who, in adult life moved to another country, specifically France, and resolved to learn the language and worked very hard at it. But she said the big breakthrough through was when she went out with a French friend of hers and sort of attempted to speak the language. And her French friend said, no, the mistake you're making is you're too self conscious. And the advice wasn't to drink more. But I think it was broadly similar because she said, what you have to do is just go full blown comedy French woman, just like, lean all the way into it, do this like you're doing an impression of French people. And she said, honestly, once I started doing that, it worked. An absolute trip treat Andrew, very quickly on the spot.

A (32:14)

What drink and what language? If you could knock back something and have the proficiency, what would you be drinking? Where would you be?

D (32:22)

Possibly, counterintuitively, the language that I would probably most like to be able to speak is one where in most places where it is spoken. Alcohol's not a huge thing. I'd love to be able to speak Arabic, mostly because it's the language I enjoy listening to other people speaking most. I have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, obviously, but it sounds absolutely.

A (32:45)

Lovely, Emily, it's only right for me to ask you the same question.

C (32:48)

Oh, I would love to learn Arabic, but as the winter season is coming and skiing is about to be a thing, so let me say Wallis Swiss German, which is a rather difficult form of Swiss German. So maybe a pint of beer on the slopes and fluent in Swiss German in Vallis.

A (33:06)

Sold. Sounds good to me. Emily Isaho and Andrew Miller, thank you both for being with us. You're listening to the Monocle Daily. You are listening to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from D90 here in Zurich, I'm delighted to say I'm joined now by Monocle Security correspondent Garana Gogic. Garana, good evening. How are you today?

F (33:37)

Good evening, Kon. The first day of autumn which is positively soggy here in Zurich. So my mood is somewhat correlated to the weather outside.

A (33:48)

A little gloomy. I flew in from London earlier.

F (33:51)

Was it sunny there?

A (33:52)

Positively sunny. This never happens. I don't know what's going on anyway.

F (33:55)

You're in the wrong place.

A (33:56)

Exactly. This is my Britishness shining through with the conversation about the weather. Listen, I want to talk to you about Russian plans, an alternative, so they say to the Starlink satellite Internet service Guarana, what do you make of these plans and to what extent is it as easy as saying it's their version, it's their replacement? Is it as simple as that? These things are often somewhat more complicated, aren't they?

F (34:20)

Yeah, absolutely. So what we have these days are just some basic sort of intel around this very much developing story and that is that Russia is developing Rassvet, which is a $5 billion satellite Internet Const. And it is indeed pitched as something that should be a kind of alpieri, an alternative to Elon Musk's Starlink. It's run by a Russian space company which is a private entity, but it has basically some buy in from Roscosmos, which is Russian space agency and its plan is to build around 380 satellites by the end of the decade. So by 2030, with the official rationale that it is all about national broadband expansion, which is usually how these things are termed even in Europe. It is about connectivity. That's a sort of buzzword. But if we dig in a little bit deeper, there is a strategic rationale to this and that is to match Starlink's battlefield role, which we know has been crucial in some aspects of Ukrainian defense against Russian aggression, that it's now very much three and a half years in the making?

A (35:35)

Well, yeah, let's dig into that in a bit more detail because these terminals, I think it's many thousand, have been key in securing Ukrainian wartime communications. Period. Right. Been really important. How easy is it to develop a substitute? You mentioned the timeline there. End of the decade. One hopes that the kind of hot conflict is long gone by then, but one never knows. Is it actually possible to turn around something which will have a meaningful strategic benefit in the short term, or is that fanciful? Is it again, is there a bit of sort of politicking going on here?

B (36:07)

Well, as.

A (36:08)

As well.

F (36:08)

Well, that is a great question because these days what we are seeing on the battlefield is that increasingly private companies are actually dictating a lot of the strategy that goes on. And so in that sense, if there is a sort of huge imprint or if the Russian government is pressing its thumb on the scale a lot, that can also in a way impede the development in a way that private companies would like to operate and, and skew it. Of course. I mean, in terms of the investment there, I think that just the kind of size of the whole Space X endeavor compared to this thing that has been announced, it's still very much a kind of disproportional thing. I mean, Elon Musk is on his way to become the first world's trillionaire. And so in terms of, you know, the capital and the cash you, you have at debt disposal as a private company, it's much greater on, on the side of Space X and Starlink as such, rather than what has been now announced by Rassvet. But we shouldn't underestimate it. We absolutely have to look at it from the perspective of what this does to help the intelligence collection, surveillance, reconnaissance. So the famous ISR on the battlefield for Russians. And they do see that they are in some way being. When Elon Musk allows Ukrainians to use Starlink unimpeded, they are outperformed by Ukrainians to actually have that sort of vision of the battlefield. So it's early days to say, you know, whether this tips the balance completely, but we know that for now, the sort of capabilities on the side of the west, if we can use this term still, you know, of the US of Europe has been more potent than what Russia has had in hand.

A (38:12)

And just if we zoom out a bit, and this is a narrative we've discussed before, I think we talked about a little bit at the, in the, in the conference, it kind of cropped up this idea about, you know, he or she who controls the information, look, it's a sort of truism of, of any conflict that, you know, the flow of information to the public, military information, it's obviously strategically critical. When you see a move like this or plans like this, does it just underscore that, that point? And do we have any insights as to where Russia kind of is in terms of the information battle? We talk a lot about the dark arts and the outward expression of it, but in terms of their internal systems, what kind of robust shape or not are they in Agrana as you understand it?

F (38:54)

Yeah, that's also a great question. And of course we are all sometimes pawns and hopefully sometimes agents as well and can in a way have a say over things that we are being exposed to in terms of the kind of strategic communication battles that are going on. I think the announcement there and just the sort of, you know, like the drips of information that we are getting about this project and you know, the kind of things that have been underlined. And also some of the language that we've seen as well, you know, that almost mirrors the whole like connectivity again, national broadband expansion. This is some of the stuff that we also hear from the European Union, for instance, you know, in terms of security and defense, that it is about critical infrastructure resilience, that it is about interconnectivity and then also security. Right. But it does tell us something about signaling and where Russia is headed. And that is the sort of bigger takeaway line for me here, which is that satellite Internet systems are not any longer kind of a question of giving broadband Internet to people in kind of rural Siberia. Right. But they are very part of this broader sort of civil military link. It is about dual link and they are weapons of war and increasingly so in the bigger strategic competition that we are seeing across the international system.

A (40:29)

Absolutely fascinating stuff. Excellent insights as always. Guarana, thanks for being with us. So you're going to join us again in the morning? No sleep.

F (40:36)

I don't know how this works with the Swiss labor laws because I think I am entitled to, to a 12 hour break between like my work schedule. So we have our producer Desi here who is just joyfully like laughing there at the other end.

A (40:53)

She doesn't look overly concerned.

F (40:54)

No, she doesn't. No, no, she, she's very happy for me to keep on Monocle Radio.

A (40:59)

It's. We're very international as a station. That's how we sidestep these local difficulties. But Guarana, great to hear from you and look forward to seeing you again in the morning. That's our Gurana Gojic, our security correspondent. Thanks for being with us here on THE Daily. And that is all for this special edition of the Monocle Daily. Huge thanks to my guests today, Tyler Brule, Andrew Muller, Emily Isoa and Gharana Gurgic. Of course, today's program was produced by Laura Kramer and Desi Bandley. Desi was our Zurich sound engineer with Elliot Greenfield on the desk back in London. The show was researched by Daniela Brauer Smith. My thanks to them one and all. Lots more coming up from Zurich from D90 all through tomorrow. Tomorrow, do stay tuned. Don't touch the dial, but from me, Tom Edwards, here in Zurich, that is all. That was your Monocle Daily. Do join us at the same time tomorrow. Goodbye. Thanks for listening.