Kellogg's Global Politics

Xi-Biden Summit, Israel-Hamas War, and Stalemate in Ukraine

• Anita Kellogg

Share episode

Recent headlines have been focused on the Xi-Biden meeting at APEC in San Francisco this week. We talk about what happened and the implications for the future of U.S.-China relations.

But first, we discuss the Israel-Hamas war, now in its sixth week of fighting. Can Israeli military actions achieve their objectives of destroying Hamas and recovering the more than 200 hostages? Are they doing enough to protect civilian lives in Gaza?

Then we turn to the Russia - Ukraine war, which seems to have hit a stalemate. With the popularity of continued support from the West waning, where does the war go from here? What does “success” look like? 


Topics Discussed in this Episode

  • 05:50 - Israel-Hamas War
  • 23:50 - Russia-Ukraine Stalemate
  • 45:30 - Xi-Biden Meeting at APEC


Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode


Israel-Hamas War


Russia-Ukraine War: Stalemate, Rethinking Success, and Russia Resurgent?


Xi-Biden Meeting at APEC








Send us a text

Follow Us

Anita Kellogg: [00:00:00] Welcome to Kellogg's Global Politics, a podcast on current events in U. S. foreign policy and international affairs. My name is Dr. Anita Kellogg, an international relations scholar specializing in the relationship between economics and national security. I'm here with my cohost, Ryan Kellogg, an expert in energy investment and policy.

Ryan Kellogg: Thanks and glad to be back. This is episode 40 and we're recording this on November [00:00:30] 17th, 2023. 

Anita Kellogg: Recent headlines have been focused on the Xi Biden meeting at APEC in San Francisco this week. We talk about what happened and the implications for the future of U. S. China relations. But first, we discuss the Israel Hamas war, now in its sixth week of fighting.

Can Israeli military actions achieve their objectives to destroy Hamas and recover more than 200 hostages? Are they doing enough to protect civilian lives in Gaza? [00:01:00] Then we turn to the Russia Ukraine war, which seems to have hit a stalemate. With the popularity of continued support from the West waning, where does the war go from here?

What does success look like? So what have we been up to, Ryan? 

Ryan Kellogg: Well, I mean, you've been, you've had a busy last month or so between traveling out to the Air Force Academy for a conference and then you had a speaking engagement. Mm hmm. At the University of Maryland Law School, so you want to, [00:01:30] you want to talk a little bit about that?

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, so I was up in Baltimore a couple weeks ago talking about Chinese economic statecraft, and so it was hosted by the University of Maryland Law Journal, so primarily a law conference, and I'm not a lawyer in any way, so that was kind of interesting. A lot of interesting things to listen to on economic statecraft.

Most people are still thinking and writing about coercion, and what I liked about what I did. At this conference, kind of starting a new project, [00:02:00] as if I need a new one, I should finish the other ones first, but looking at the effectiveness of Chinese positive economic engagement through its loans and infrastructure projects in the global south.

And I think having that different perspective was well received. I think people are, are looking for something beyond the typical. statecraft as coercion. 

Ryan Kellogg: Most of this, in terms of the attendees, were lawyers or was there kind of a mix of [00:02:30] academics from other backgrounds? 

Anita Kellogg: The majority were lawyers, international lawyers, but the panel that I was speaking on, economic statecraft, was a mix.

Certainly even more, less lawyers, I think. Certainly than the other panels. 

Ryan Kellogg: And then going back two weeks earlier, you actually made a trip out to Colorado, to the Air Force Academy. So what was that like? I know you had been to West Point really early on, kind of in your academic pursuits, but what was that whole [00:03:00] experience like for you?

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, it was really neat. I think one thing that would have been really cool is if they had given us like a tour of the Air Force Academy because that's what I got when I went to West 

Ryan Kellogg: Point. Okay, so no 

Anita Kellogg: tour. No tour. So you just really got to see a little part of it. It's really spread out too. I know, like, I was thinking I needed a charger cord and like, oh, you can pick it up in the commissary if you have a military ID, which I do through the DOD.

But then I looked on the map. It was like three [00:03:30] miles away. I was like, 

Ryan Kellogg: wow, there's a big, it's a big campus. Yeah, I guess they just have like more room to 

Anita Kellogg: spread out. Yeah. So that kind of surprised me and I was like, well, I'm not walking that far, 

Ryan Kellogg: right? Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah Take two hours in my whole day. Yeah, so I got the impression I spread out Colorado.

That area is just gorgeous It's just so beautiful a colleague of mine went with his wife and child They live in Colorado, but they were there And I was really jealous of her [00:04:00] and her son because they went sightseeing the whole time And it's just that kind of area, Pikes Peak is there and just, it's just a really nice area to see the mountains.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, well, it looked really nice. I mean, they, so Fox had for their Veterans Day NFL coverage, they had the announcing crew kind of down at the Air Force Academy. So just seeing shots of that, like in the background, seemed, yeah, it seemed really awesome. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. It's really cool. [00:04:30] And then talking to some cadets.

That's interesting. That, I don't know, I think of people going to the Air Force Academy wanting to be pilots, right? And how most of them do not actually, which I guess makes sense because you can only have so many pilots. But I thought it was interesting that he was talking about how the pilots have a 10 year commitment rather than the normal 5 year commitment.

Ryan Kellogg: Oh, so pilot, yeah, because they, the government put so much money into training them that you want, you want that investment, I [00:05:00] guess, to be secured for a number of years. It makes sense. I think I saw on your bag, so did you, I think you got a challenge coin too. So add into your challenge coin collection.

Yeah, 

Anita Kellogg: my three coins so far. One of them I cannot find at all. It's very annoying. 

Ryan Kellogg: Oh, yeah. You got to keep track of those. I know. 

Anita Kellogg: I've looked everywhere for it. I don't know what happened to it. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Well, so you're going to get a free drink and a bar at some point without a challenge going on 

Anita Kellogg: here. I'm not sure that happens.

It's also [00:05:30] like my three are so sad because like most of the instructors there are military or a lot of them are. Yeah. And so like my office may They're like 40. Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: Right. Like I have You got it. You got to start somewhere. Exactly. 

Anita Kellogg: Okay. Okay. Well, on to our first story, which is the Israel Hamas war. So after six weeks of war and three weeks of ground fighting, Israel is now considered having control [00:06:00] of northern Gaza.

This follows, of course, as we talked about in the last two podcasts, the horrific attack on Israel on October 7th that left 1, 400 dead and more than 200 kidnapped. But civilians on the Palestinian side have been also dramatically affected by this war, with at least 11, 000 Palestinians have been killed, which is 0.

5 percent of the population, equivalent to more than all U. S. losses during World War II. [00:06:30] What I find really troubling is that more than 100 U. N. staffers have been included in this toll, highest losses than any other conflict. I just think the amazing people who are there on the ground in Gaza are true heroes, because I can't, I would never put myself in that situation.

It's just so hard for me to imagine people who will sacrifice like that. So now The humanitarian crisis is that most of the population is now in the southern half of Gaza, meaning that 1. 5 [00:07:00] million have been displaced from their homes. Winter is now reaching the area, and these people are, the rains are raining out their tents, and they're sleeping in mud, and they just don't have enough food or shelter.

So what has Israel even accomplished through this? And just a couple things to note, the MAS leaders still are both at large, the hostages remain missing. I know you might want to talk a little bit about humanitarian issues at some of the hospitals, but to [00:07:30] really destroy a MAS, you would have to have combat in South Gaza.

And how do you do that without more horrific level of casualties of Palestinians? Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: so I think it's, as we've seen over the last months, that the Israeli action and response to the horrors of October 7th, have basically whatever sort of sympathy existed for Israel from the global public at large has [00:08:00] largely dissipated because the response to it and the lead up to the ground invasion and IDF's effective control of northern Gaza was very indiscriminate.

I mean, that's the only way to describe it. That's the only way we could. Attribute the civilian losses that you saw on the Palestinian side, and it doesn't seem to have been effective in terms of the objective of trying to destroy Hamas. I [00:08:30] mean, there's no way of knowing kind of what Hamas's casualties are, but it is clear, like you mentioned, that the head leader, Yaha Sinwar, and then his military chief, Mohamed Yif, they're both at large.

They've freed only a very small handful of hostages, and that's largely been through diplomatic efforts rather than the combat operations themselves. So, at this stage, it's, yeah, they do have effective control. They have And they got that control by [00:09:00] basically displacing one and a half million people from their homes and then destroying the infrastructure, but they don't have control of the tunnel system.

They've been going kind of systematically house by house within kind of the rubble. of Northern Gaza and noting kind of the, the tunnel entrances, but they haven't sent troops down into the tunnels themselves. And then a lot has been building around this one hospital at [00:09:30] Al Shifa in Northern Gaza. I think a lot of the media coverage over the last two weeks has been there as Israeli forces have encircled the hospital.

And it seemed to be. Credible intelligence and Hamas definitely has a strategy of using the hospital as a shield. And so it's alleged that one of Hamas's headquarters is under this hospital, but it's created. Kind of a very, in terms of the optics of it, very painful pictures of [00:10:00] premature babies, of people.

Oh yeah, I saw them wrapped 

Anita Kellogg: in tinfoil. Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: yeah, so it's basically this, this hospital has no fuel, limited supplies, obviously huge injured civilian population, the premature babies that we talked about, so that the optics of it. I know IDF has made kind of a point of, of dropping off kind of fuel sources of, but they essentially, there was a [00:10:30] parallel that was mentioned in a Washington Post article that compared this to when ISIS, when the assault on Mosul, which was kind of the capstone, the last city that was held by ISIS.

And they had taken a similar tactic and had forces embedded and under a hospital there. But I think the key difference was Allied forces gave a sufficient amount of time to evacuate the hospital. And [00:11:00] then I think the real key is they had a place to evacuate them to where they could receive medical care.

And Israel, I think just reading the headlines there today, they are beginning an evacuation process. I don't think it's clear where they're going to go, where are they going to bring these people to because effectively the border with Israel is completely closed. The only source of aid is coming from Egypt and honestly that's been a real trickle because it has to go, I think a hundred kilometers out of [00:11:30] the way for security inspection by Israeli forces before then coming back around to the one opening through Egypt.

Anita Kellogg: Well, I was reading in one of the articles that they've also halted much of it because they don't have fuel for forklifts. So they don't have fuel to get the goods off the trucks. Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah. That's one of the reasons why you're not seeing very many trucks come in because they can't unload them.

Yeah. I mean, fuel shortages, it's hard to emphasize enough, but also like [00:12:00] sewage. Has stopped. There's no sewage processing in much of Gaza. Yeah, so the UN's warning about Waterborne diseases like cholera. Sure. Yeah being spread Humanitarian side of this is pretty horrific as People around the world are responding to it But I think what was so pointed about the article that you were you were referring to is that there are Alternative ways to do this.

There are ways that Israel could [00:12:30] dramatically include more aid and more assistance to the Palestinian people themselves? 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And I think for, for Israel to achieve its political objectives and, and frankly, its military objectives, if it has to intervene in the South in order, assuming that Hamas or significant portion of Hamas leadership has fled to the South, the only, humane way to be able to intervene in the area is to take care [00:13:00] of the humanitarian crisis.

It's just hard to imagine how they're going to win any sort of long term political solution or even even accomplish their military objectives without addressing the humanitarian issue of basically doubling the population in the southern part, but still have it basically completely cut off from, from aid.

So I think that minimum, they're going to have to open up the, the [00:13:30] northern border directly with Israel, which is a lot more efficient in processing aid and finding some way to, to manage that with, with the UN. I 

Anita Kellogg: really hope they do because it's terrible what's happening. And I guess the point is, all this has happened, this terrible humanitarian crisis, and they haven't, they didn't achieve their objective 

Ryan Kellogg: so far.

Yeah, because it's there's much greater expectations for Israel, a democratic nation allied [00:14:00] with the West in terms of its humanitarian treatment versus a Hamas. I mean, Hamas is without a doubt completely in the fault and morally repugnant. But how, how do you think you're going to defeat a force that has these tunnels underneath are willing to use civilians as, as shields?

By taking kind of this, this brute force, which it wasn't effective because they, they were hiding in these tunnels during all these bombings. And if you're unwilling to [00:14:30] send assault teams, which is for humanitarian reason and political reason, I mean, you don't want to risk IDF casualties unnecessarily in that, but at the same time, how are you going to defeat a guerrilla force?

That's hidden under these extensive tunnel networks. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, so it continues to be this. It's a terrible tragedy, but I think Israel has to do something different about the humanitarian situation. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, because I think their [00:15:00] timetable is going to be extremely limited, and we've seen that from the political pressure within all Western capitals.

I think this has been really unprecedented. The amount and number of people on the streets in support. of the Palestinians within the West is extraordinary to the point actually where people, there was one article from the Financial Times that within Iran, of course, there had always been state approved [00:15:30] protest in support of Palestine.

Iranians were actually ashamed at how small, like the support relative to London. which has on multiple weekends now had hundreds of thousands of people in the street protesting their government's response around, around that issue and calling for ceasefire. And we've seen, we've seen that here in, in DC.

I mean, that was a big protest a couple of weeks ago. And it's, it's something [00:16:00] that. Has become a political issue and potential political liability for Democrats Within the U. S. where you have a significant part of the progressive left On the Democrat wing that is threatening to not vote essentially for for Biden, which we can talk about how productive or counterproductive that strategy is.

But I think there are enough. There's there's now like a faction that is putting pressure [00:16:30] on the Biden administration. And I think you've seen that with kind of with Blinken and sort of his policies and kind of what he's attempting to get, but I think at the end of the day, Israel has a very limited time frame to accomplish its objectives and any sort of entry into South Gaza is going to be very limited in terms of the duration and the time that I think the U.

S. Politically will be willing to tolerate because of the unprecedented number of [00:17:00] people on the streets and the potential and the big election coming up in 2024 here, 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, so it's a massive tragedy, and hopefully things will, at least, we'll see some improvement over the next few weeks. I don't know how optimistic I am about that, but hopefully.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so I think the other interesting thing has been seeing how the Arab nations have reacted around. And of course, we've seen [00:17:30] similar to the big protests and Western capitals, you've seen a lot of action on the street. And that certainly has forced leadership there to express that anger and the rhetoric.

But when the Arab League met 11th, it really revealed that. All nations were calling for a ceasefire, but no concrete actions were being taken to end it in any way. So for instance, you had [00:18:00] Iran had a general call to arm Palestinians. And other nations were introducing kind of, Oh, we should have diplomatic and economic sanctions on Israel.

All of those were, were uniformly rejected by the league. They also generally rejected the, the use of oil as a weapon, just because it didn't align really with the economic interests, particularly of the largest player, Saudi Arabia. They do seem to be. Continued cuts within [00:18:30] OPEC oil supply, but it seems like more of a continuation to help prop up flagging prices.

Prices are now back down to under 80 per barrel Brent, which is considerably below what it was at the start of the crisis and actually matches some lows from earlier this spring. So it's really, I mean, I saw it mostly as a triumph of kind of what MBS and other members of the Gulf state that want to [00:19:00] create a new Middle East that's more focused on economics rather than ideology.

And that's at least true at this stage within the crisis. Now, of course, you have IDF invasion of South Gaza and another uptick within Palestinian. casualties or a worsening of the humanitarian crisis that could all, all reverse. But at least at this data point for this first meeting of all the Muslim [00:19:30] nations within the region, you saw basically zero concrete actions, which really stands in stark contrast to the reactions in the seventies.

Anita Kellogg: Mm hmm. Yeah, definitely. I mean, I think obviously This whole economic primacy is very different than what they were planning in the 70s. And I think it is interesting the way that it has taken primacy over the political conflict. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I think it's just, it's a, it's a very different dynamic. But the, [00:20:00] the last thing I wanted to touch on was around Saudi Arabia specifically, because I think, I mean, basically it's been revealed that a key motivator for Hamas's actions was to help scupper the normalization of relations with Israel.

Obviously, the U. S. is trying to still bring Saudi into a potential solution around this crisis. And there was an interesting article from Gregory Goss in Foreign [00:20:30] Affairs that really talked about how likely it is for Saudis to be engaged. within this, this process that the U. S. State Department has tried to encourage.

And it seems like it's unlikely, because essentially we've, we want Saudis in a post invasion, the Israeli forces having pulled out. There's encouragement of having kind of both Arab money and leadership, with Saudis being at the, the [00:21:00] front of kind of taking over a period of time before a two state solution.

could be restarted. This is assuming that's even politically possible within Israel, which of course right now is absolutely not the case. But within this article really argues that, hey, the Saudis don't have the desire or the ability, one, to put boots on the ground, just because their forces Have zero capability and they also have zero experience working with the UN mm-Hmm.

As the volunteering [00:21:30] forces, as is as un back to force. And then on the reconstruction, they've already come out before, in previous times, the kind of Palestinian reconstruction following theta, the Saudis have granted just like just giving them cash. Essentially for it, and MBS has expressed that he's interested in investment opportunities, but not in cash grants anymore, and that seems true throughout the Arab world.

So I always find this interesting, the disconnect [00:22:00] between, hey, Palestinians are brothers, we're unified, and then in reality, in terms of helping them materially, that there's no state that's usually willing to step up. And in these cases, well, why do 

Anita Kellogg: it when the West has to, 

Ryan Kellogg: that's the way it's certainly be framed is that Israel created this.

So Israel should have to fund the rebuilding, which of course will be Israel and the West. It'd be the U. S. 

Anita Kellogg: and the U. 

Ryan Kellogg: N. [00:22:30] The U. S. and the U. N. supplying the, the funds for, for rebuilding, but trying to rebuild the process for a two state solution, which is always seen as critical for normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

We already see kind of a breakdown in the fact that Israel says it wants to stay as an occupying force within northern Gaza. That's the only way it sees itself as being able to maintain its security. Who are they occupying 

Anita Kellogg: [00:23:00] at this point? 

Ryan Kellogg: The rubble. Yeah, there's no, there's nobody within northern Gaza, but I guess it provides a buffer to the more populated areas of, of Israel.

But yeah. Yeah, so compared to what the U. S. wants to see, which is the Palestinian Authority based in the West Bank to take over full control over the administration with Gaza, combined with this Arab backed security force under the guise of the U. N., but it seems like the U. [00:23:30] S. is a long way to go to realize that sort of framework on, on both sides.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. So moving on to the Russia Ukraine war, just briefly, there's more recognition that it's been kind of a stalemate and the dialogue is now what comes next? 

Ryan Kellogg: Yes, I think this has been a real shift and probably, I mean, what would be called like the Washington [00:24:00] establishment of what is kind of the mainstream.

view on, on the conflict and on, on the future. So I think following the gigantic gains that Ukraine had at the end of, end of last year around Kirsan and in the South, that there was this expectation just, and we talked about before, there's just this projection of Russian military incompetence would just continue into the [00:24:30] future.

And. Following a very disappointing result and kind of the end of the counteroffensive season, just dictated largely by temperature and weather, you've seen very little gain on both sides, but particularly disappointing for Ukraine, which As we talked about before, hope to sever the land bridge in southern Ukraine that connected Crimea and came nowhere close to it.

I mean, you look at the [00:25:00] maps and very little gain over that despite the huge amount of munitions supplied by the 

Anita Kellogg: West. I read that Russia actually gained more territory in 2023. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, they did. Yeah. We talked about that in the last, the last episode, but yeah, that still remains a pretty shocking point. I mean.

Mind you, these are like literally single kilometers. Yeah. I mean, this is very much a World War I complete stalemate. People are fighting over hundreds of meters of [00:25:30] territory. But yeah, Russia technically gained more territory. over the last year than Ukraine. So I think when you see a foreign affairs article by Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan, that was really seen as a signal that the thinking within the foreign policy establishment is beginning to shift away from rhetoric on, well, what can we do to support Russia's total defeat and [00:26:00] the stated objectives of Zelensky and Ukraine of pushing Russia back to pre 2014 borders.

So the retaking of Crimea, just the complete defeat of Russia to, well, what's, what's actually more realistic? And the article really frames it around how can you, it's really just taking those goals and what's, what's realistic and what can we, we shift towards. And it's, it's really focused on taking, going [00:26:30] back to a defensive measure, protecting the remaining 80 percent of the country, rebuilding, using those resources to rebuild both the, the military capabilities of Ukraine and the, the civilian infrastructure.

And then, cause I think the one thing that has been proven is, is Russia's not capable of going on the offensive either. And their general strategy of throwing bodies. at it is, is a disaster in terms of, of loss of [00:27:00] manpower. Now it's something that they can keep up and it's, it's definitely something that they've been very resilient in terms of, they've ramped up their arms industry.

So the industrial capacity of Russia is now fully geared. For the war, they haven't tapped necessarily everything on the manpower side. They don't have full mobilization, but have had a series of partial mobilizations. That being said, you have to have three times the force amount to [00:27:30] go back on the offensive and they've, they have shown themselves not to be capable of that.

So it's really just making sure, so I think the, the strategy is. Both from this article and then some of the Ian Bremmer had an article and Time Magazine. Both kind of recognize that 2024, you're very unlikely to get a actual ceasefire deal. So any sort of agreement, because, and we talked about this before, the motivation on the Russian side.[00:28:00] 

I don't know, I mean, tell me what you, do you think Putin still thinks he can have total victory? by outweighing the West? Or is this just about the way that this article's framed it is that you're going to have much more favorable terms if Trump comes back into office. So it's just holding out for the U.

S. election and the hope that that'll shift in terms of when to begin it to negotiate a ceasefire. What do you think Russia really holds out complete capitulation? 

Anita Kellogg: That's a good [00:28:30] question. And one I've learned to never, ever think that I understand Putin's mind, because a lot of the war didn't make sense from, from a logical point to attack all of Ukraine.

But I don't think he's ruled out that they can make further gains, because he sees that, well, what if the West cannot maintain new weapons supply to Ukraine, right? Well, can Ukraine maintain [00:29:00] the type of defense that it has? And defense is easier than offense, so maybe. But if in Putin's mind, it's it's an important calculation that I think he will take a wait and see approach.

I don't think he has any motivation to kind of immediately negotiate a ceasefire. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I agree with that. I don't know if he still envisions. Yeah, complete capitulation, but I would imagine, yeah, I, I [00:29:30] agree that he would want to take territory because he at least wants to, they annexed three regions early on in the war.

They don't have full territorial control of those three eastern regions, but that's something where I could see just for the, the being able, prior to a ceasefire, to claim that you accomplished these objectives that you set out to do would be a huge, Victory for him. They can definitely frame that as complete victory.

So [00:30:00] either to hold out test kind of offensives to see if you can gain that militarily, or you basically come with a favorable Trump administration and say, these are the terms. We'll end the war, but we want this full amount of territory for the annexed regions. And I could see Trump. doing that. Oh, easily.

Easily. Easily. 

Anita Kellogg: I think there's a real question, right? We can't get new funding through the Congress. And what happens when Spain's not getting the same shipments of [00:30:30] weapons to supply what they've been spending? 

Ryan Kellogg: Well, I think they, they don't, I mean, that's the, that's the part of the strategy of going back on the defensive side.

You aren't going to need near the expenditure of weapons if you are playing defense. A lot of the focus is going to be on repairing. existing equipment. So while they lost like operational capability, a lot of the Western armor, not a lot, but a good amount of the Western armor that was sent, it's still repairable.

It's not like an unsalvageable. So they'll, they'll still be able to [00:31:00] do that. 

Anita Kellogg: An operation itself to repair those. It is, 

Ryan Kellogg: but it's a lot less demanding in terms of resources and money than just the. production capacity that's needed. I was listening to the Warren Rocks podcast with Michael Kaufman and kind of also talked about The West has to decide what the strategy is for next year, the, the objective.

And I mean, one way that he framed it was kind of a, a [00:31:30] rebuilding, and this is strictly from kind of the military side because it does allow also the production capacity is ramping up, but we talked about for is ramping up so slowly that Ukraine actually won't have an advantage and artillery production until.

The end of 2024, and then you look at the political, a lot of questions will be answered on both sides, both for the West, for the Ukraine and for Russia [00:32:00] with the U. S. election. I mean, that's probably the biggest, in terms of the, the criticality to the foreign policy, the U. S. election is, is seen as, as a turning point one way or the other.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, I think, though, even if Biden stays in power, there's still a problem with getting new aid. I 

Ryan Kellogg: think, I think you're gonna, you may not get the full 60 billion that he's called for, but I think you're gonna get a good portion of that. It's just gonna come with more strings attached around [00:32:30] the objectives.

And probably a timeline. I think it's the funding after that is the issue. So that's, I think that's why there's this big push on getting clarity around, we need to shift objectives to something more realistic. And have a end goal in mind that we want to accomplish. Just don't 

Anita Kellogg: see how it gets to the House with the current environment, because I think they'll threaten the speakership again.

Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: I'm not as pessimistic, but maybe you're right. Maybe it'll be so gummed up. [00:33:00] I mean, it is, yeah, Congress is a mess. They can't even pass Israeli funding, which the far right MAGA want. Yeah, you may be right there. I know Europe has stepped in to fill some of that gap in terms of funding and capability.

I know Ukraine, in terms of armaments, wants to try to bring that in house as much as possible. It's not clear, like, how much, like, technology [00:33:30] transfer. That U. S. and the West is willing to do to make that make it so Ukraine factories can can produce this switching over more to a a loaning model to where Ukraine just is going into debt, uh, to pay for these things.

Probably a lot of things that can be shifted around in terms of funding. But I think it's the burn rate has to go down. I can't. It's not sustainable going on offense, but from a money and from a manpower [00:34:00] point of view. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, those are good points. And I'd read some articles, yeah, about building that capacity within Ukraine, how much capacity you could actually build.

I mean, it's definitely notable that Russia has fully mobilized. One thing we talk about in my class about mobilization is that it, it takes time for a country to mobilize, right? I mean, most countries don't have the benefit of mobilizing before war starts. Even the ones who started are not [00:34:30] usually fully mobilized.

And the West has not mobilized in the same way. And this definitely gives Russia a lot more staying power. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I think that's, I mean, I think it's really remarkable. I mean, just the, it's the incentives. It's, I mean, Russia views this. as existential to its, and definitely the regime reviews as absolutely existential to its further existence.

So it's committed, even though the Russian economy is so small, you know, smaller than the Italian [00:35:00] economy, I think. It's dedicated 40 percent of its economy to this war effort. It's pulling in significant ammunition, artillery shells from North Korea. It's been able to skirt. Almost completely the the sanctions around oil.

So it's getting oil to the market It's exceeding the price cap that was kind of tried to be enforced by the g7 So yeah, I think Russia definitely [00:35:30] feels like it's on a a sustainable path I kind of wonder I haven't really seen this take but Some nations can really emerge much stronger coming out of a war I don't know if I'd be so crazy that I mean, I, I still think it, it weakens itself relative to China and becomes this junior partner almost vassal state, commodity vassal state to China.

But it wasn't like it was on a great economic path before. [00:36:00] But given The increase in industrial capacity and production and a military that now has some of the deepest combat experience. Mm hmm. I mean, it's gonna be Ukraine and Russia have the deepest, most recent combat experience. Does Russia come out stronger from this?

It's kind of a crazy take, but I just think of like, Soviet Union came out a superpower from World War II, despite suffering 30 [00:36:30] million casualties, but it emerged an industrial superpower, a scientific superpower. Does this pressure, this whole civilizational pressure on it. make it stronger if it comes out even with a semi victory?

I mean, 

Anita Kellogg: yes. I don't know how much stronger. But, yeah, I mean, I'd be interested if this extra industrial capacity can be shifted from wartime efforts to, [00:37:00] to other efforts. How much of this is, is additional capacity? I think geopolitically, it certainly ends up in a pretty good position. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, well, what if it, I mean, I was just thinking, because one of the articles may say, Oh, it's become more, it's kind of less capability abroad, but I'm thinking it essentially has carte blanche across all of Central Africa now.

I don't see it pivoting its industries to consumer use, but does it just pivot this extra capacity to arms production? [00:37:30] And now it has all these client states that were formerly buying, I don't know, French, French arms. It's now full, like a full Russian market. I'm just speculating here, but. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, arms sales.

Yeah. Definitely. Between that and. For Africa. Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: but, yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: For all the civil conflicts that exist there. But yeah, I mean, I think you could see a more state controlled mercenary group. To [00:38:00] have, to be doing what Wagner was doing, protecting these warlord regimes, selling arms sales has always been one of the ways that Russia has maintained a certain amount of geopolitical power.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I'm just, I mean, between that natural gas, it's never like a big high margin and that's going to take a long time for like the pipelines and deals to be completed to shift that production to China. But oil, it's obviously, it came [00:38:30] up with this. gigantic transport fleet, both from direct ownership and then from states like India and others that are profiting from slightly below market crude.

But it's able to get, and that being the huge part of its revenue, you combine that with kind of this revitalized industrial base. And the only thing it really loses, I mean, it loses on, but it wasn't effectively doing like the high end stuff. It was never the tech and the things where. It probably has the [00:39:00] intellectual and human, or it used to have the human capital to do that.

But now it just doubles down on, I don't know, between like being kind of a Chinese commodity source and then like Africa arms sales. I don't know, it just, it seems like the future for Russia is not as bleak. Even keeping all these sanctions in place that the West has. That, yeah, I could, I could see Russia actually emerging stronger out of this [00:39:30] because of, because of the war, certainly the regime's stronger.

Yeah, that's no question. The regime's much stronger. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean, again, I'm not sure how we measure stronger in geopolitical terms in certain aspects. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I guess I'm envisioning it. It's going to continue to punch well above its weight. I mean, I think it faces like long term demographic and then obviously a economy built on commodities is ultimately going to be limited [00:40:00] and in a lot of ways.

I think 

Anita Kellogg: your allusion to World War II is interesting and I don't know enough about Russia's industrialization during that period, but if you could take some of that. industrial mobilization for war and somehow use it for your economy, then you might emerge stronger. I mean, I don't know if that can happen.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, a significant part of the Soviet economy remained dedicated towards. the military, um, but it did, it did definitely shift and [00:40:30] it's not just World War II. I mean, this was part of Stalin's general industrialization process through the 30s. But I just can't help but think he, especially if you go back to the 20s, he took this rural peasant medieval economy and then by the 1950s, It was legit challenging the United States and high scientific endowment for the Red Scare and the whole space race and all of that.

And similar to us, it was because they stole Nazi drone scientists [00:41:00] to advance, but it still had the industrial capacity to build these rockets and to deliver these things. So I'm like, are we seeing Russian capability? In similar, more muted ways, but still this, it could be a big stimulus to, to their economy.

I don't know. 

Anita Kellogg: I don't know either. I, it's an interesting take. Obviously one I haven't heard before either, but I just don't know how much stronger. I mean, I [00:41:30] think it obviously comes out a little stronger. They get the ceasefire. They get to have these annexed regions of Ukraine. I mean, that alone is 

Ryan Kellogg: like, ultimately the, I mean, but it is they've, yeah, they've suffered these strategic losses with the expansion of NATO.

A key part, I think of any ceasefire is going to be a. path towards EU citizenship and, and eventually after an agreed upon ceasefire NATO membership of Ukraine, all that seems like strategic defeats in terms of their [00:42:00] eurogy, but maybe they gain in other ways that they aren't so much worse off. Like they're a lot stronger in the global South.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. It's interesting to think also about all the economic sanctions that were placed on Russia and how they've managed to keep their economy afloat despite that. And there's a certain amount of. Power in that, I suppose, I mean, there's a lot less leverage for the West to try to use, not that it was effective, but it's really important [00:42:30] that they were able to do that.

Ryan Kellogg: I mean, I think the other point is those frozen funds are definitely, I mean, well, I say definitely, I mean, you mentioned you have to use that as leverage. But at the same time, there also has to be incentive for Ukraine. So I feel like those frozen funds are going to be on both sides of the ledger. Like, can you give some of that back for, to get Russia to the table?

But to get Ukraine to the table, you want to use some of these funds to rebuild the country. As punishment, [00:43:00] as rightful moral, Russia has to pay a price for what it did. 

Anita Kellogg: I disagree with you there. It's, they're totally going to give it back. No, really? 

Ryan Kellogg: I don't see that, I don't see that as guaranteed, no. I do.

Wow, that's, man. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean, because it's not like we took control over the money. We froze it, it still remains Russian assets. And we all give it back. Yeah, in our banks. It's in our banks. It doesn't matter, it doesn't work 

Ryan Kellogg: that way. But [00:43:30] it's, it's seen as, I mean, I don't know what body rules this, other than the collective West saying, you committed these war crimes This is your punishment.

Well, I mean, it has to be part of the agreement. But then you're saying Russia won't agree to any sort 

Anita Kellogg: of No of any agreement where people have taken assets from another country. Unless you defeat 

Ryan Kellogg: them 

Anita Kellogg: out now. Right. 

Ryan Kellogg: Because it definitely happens. You usually have 

Anita Kellogg: to defeat them though. You have all these Iranian funds, right?

They're frozen. Yeah. And then when you have a deal, like, it's [00:44:00] Iranian money that they get back. 

Ryan Kellogg: So again, the Qatar Bank. Yeah, it's their own From South 

Anita Kellogg: Korea, yeah. It's their own assets. Right. Which is allowing them access. their own asset, their own money. So, I don't think there's a case where people, like, it would be kind of considered stealing.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, but morally 

Anita Kellogg: justified. It doesn't, how are you gonna, this is, this is the real world. 

Ryan Kellogg: I don't know the mechanism exactly how it works, but it's actively talked about as. [00:44:30] But there should be something that that happens and it's not just like, well, sure, everyone actively talks about it, but people that know what they're talking about are proposing it, but I don't know the 

Anita Kellogg: mechanism for it.

The people who are talking about it know the legal. 

Ryan Kellogg: Well, the legal is what's determined by the West, where those that international law, I don't know. I don't know how these things work. 

Anita Kellogg: Exactly. Exactly. I'm just pretty [00:45:00] certain that I'm right, because I don't know of a case where assets have ever been permanently taken away from a country.

Other than they're out 

Ryan Kellogg: now at the feet, because that's definitely happened. That doesn't work out well sometimes. But that was a continuous payment. These funds are there. It's just putting them in somebody else's bank account. I don't think you can 

Anita Kellogg: do that. Alright, so the big topic this week [00:45:30] has actually been the Biden Xi summit at APEC.

It's the first time the two leaders have met in over a year. The second since Biden became president, the last one was at the G20 summit in Bali, which was then later derailed over the Chinese spy balloon. There were two major agreements that came out of this. One is the resumption of high level military talks.

which has been very, very important to the U. S. They were suspended last year after Nancy Pelosi's visit to [00:46:00] Taiwan and are seen as important to avoid accidental escalation in light of China's more aggressive military maneuvers around Taiwan and in the South China Sea. So the U. S. has viewed this as particularly important because no side wants to get into war, especially just based off of.

Some incident that happens with two ships colliding or two planes colliding, something like that, that nature, some sort of accident that could happen. [00:46:30] And when you don't have a red line between the military, that just makes it more room for error and misunderstanding to happen. The other big agreement happened on the eve of the meeting with the two leaders, which was an agreement over fentanyl.

Now if you listen to the Republican debates, as we've been listening, you would think that there are just massive factories of fentanyl in China that are then shipped to Mexico so it can [00:47:00] weaken the United States and destroy people in the United States. Yeah, reverse 

Ryan Kellogg: opium war. Right, 

Anita Kellogg: right, exactly, exactly.

And so one of the things I told you is really interesting in talking to Homeland Security, like the former, head of like the drug enforcement part of it found China to be very cooperative. And, and maybe some of that stems from this 2019 deal where China exported the ban at fentanyl. When I was talking to him, I was like, that's not a story I've ever heard.

And he's like, yeah, [00:47:30] they were, they were really cooperative with us. But the problem has been that The ingredients to make fentanyl still come from China. Mm hmm. So it's not about fentanyl being made in China and then exported, but that you can still export the ingredients and then you can make fentanyl in Mexico or wherever it's going to.

Mm hmm. So the agreement now is supposed to crack down on companies selling these [00:48:00] precursor ingredients and pill presses. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I'd like to know more on I, I just assume that China has like an economic advantage and these precursors. There's nothing unique in China that some other country then couldn't manufacture these precursors at a slightly higher price and export those.

So then there's just pushing the source just as an opportunity. I have no idea though, are these like legit, like just industrial chemicals that are used for a bunch of different [00:48:30] purposes that then are combined to make fentanyl? I don't know. It's more of a rhetorical question, right? The look on your face.

Anita Kellogg: I don't know. I don't know how you make fentanyl. But I know, I know it's a way of skirting the law, like you won't let us export this, so we'll just export and have these like, I'm not saying to do this, but like kits to make your own 

Ryan Kellogg: fentanyl. Unique, yeah. Or something unique that can't have a bunch of other legitimate [00:49:00] purposes.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah, there must be something unique about them. But that's not to say China is the only country that can source 

Ryan Kellogg: these. It's just the volume. Yeah. Is like the biggest. Yeah. Because of all the advantages that China has for other manufacturing, I guess. I'm just 

Anita Kellogg: guessing, but I would say that's the case.

Okay. So hopefully, I mean, people will put their own spin on it. Right. Depending on how extensive this crackdown is, it could be a big game changer. [00:49:30] I know. That was me. Well, 

Ryan Kellogg: I mean, I think it, I think it maybe takes some supply off the market for a little bit, till those markets can adjust. Yeah. But, as we talked about during the debate, Yeah, it's not The drug wars are all failures, and it's all, if you can't decrease demand, supply is always going to find a way.

Anita Kellogg: I meant big that it's not coming from China. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's all I 

Anita Kellogg: meant. It could be because, yeah, it doesn't matter. There's always some drug that's killing a lot of Americans, youth and children. [00:50:00] And it's yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: And the potency of fentanyl and the number of deaths is horrific. I mean, it's really it.

It is. You can't compare it to like the previous like cocaine or crack epidemics because the fatality rates on this drug are are extraordinary. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, so it's of course very tragic, but as long as there is demand in the United, the problem with drug wars is as long as there's demand, other countries will find a way to fuel that demand.[00:50:30] 

Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: and border controls don't matter because they'll find a way in. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I mean through all kinds of we think about illegal immigrants, but most of it is like in legitimate trucking over the border I mean unless you're gonna 100 percent not have trade between Mexico in the United States, right? It's not the case Then I mean, yeah, I don't think 

Ryan Kellogg: I saw that Although we did see them threatened to shut down all Chinese trade unless they came I guess the deal around fentanyl So I guess we avoided that, right?

Anita Kellogg: I hope [00:51:00] so. They'll probably say it doesn't go far enough. Yeah. Um, but yeah. People in my class were like, Do you really think that we could shut down all trade with China? Because it comes up occasionally in speakers saying, saying that, Oh, it'd be worse for China's economy than ours if we shut down all trade.

And like, how that would even be possible is, doesn't make any sense. We rely on all these goods, it's not like we could shut it [00:51:30] down and then suddenly find another source for the same goods. Like, it takes time to build that capacity in other countries. Yeah. So, this idea that you can just turn off the tap and trade with China is pretty ridiculous.

Right. And yet, it's a ridiculous notion I hear every day at work, but

But on the same hand, I mean, there's a lot of good economics also being taught at school that makes the students question that when they hear a speaker. Okay. I'm not saying the [00:52:00] school. That's good. Yeah. Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: They're just presenting both views on things. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Which is 

Anita Kellogg: good. It's just the economist in me is just like, why would someone say that?

So some smaller agreements also came out of this. So one is kind of weak, but. Agree to future discussions on the dangers of AI. Okay. 

Ryan Kellogg: Sounds vague. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: There was something I read previously that I felt like about [00:52:30] AI nuclear weapons. That they were banning or talking about banning. I was just like, yeah, definitely want less AI nuclear weapons.

But I didn't, I can't confirm that 

Ryan Kellogg: story. I know who was proposing that. Whose interest is to have AI involved in the use of nuclear weapons? 

Anita Kellogg: Well, maybe just someone's worried about it happening. 

Ryan Kellogg: Oh, okay. Well, that should be something we all agree on. And then, 

Anita Kellogg: we always talk about working on [00:53:00] climate change with China.

So, there was a, an agreement to pursue efforts to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030. with the intention to accelerate the substitution for coal, oil, and gas generation. This may, seems to me, the way it's worded is to also, while China is replacing a lot of coal plants in its country, it's promoting like a lot of coal plants in the global south to fuel its [00:53:30] commodity and other 

Ryan Kellogg: infrastructure.

For coal sales and probably coal plant construction. Yeah, makes sense. 

Anita Kellogg: So it seems like this might be targeted at that in some way. 

Ryan Kellogg: Oh, okay. So this isn't just like a country level goal, but globally. Yeah, yeah. Global capacity. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. So 

Ryan Kellogg: that's, that's my 

Anita Kellogg: sense, yeah. And I wouldn't categorize this as an agreement because I already said there was just four, but there was some sort of, I don't know, maybe you can call it agreement, but [00:54:00] That the lines of communication between the two leaders should stay open.

So Biden put it as like, if there's an issue I should be able to call she and he pick 

Ryan Kellogg: up the phone. So that didn't, that wasn't existent before. I thought they just weren't picking up the phone, but they have the ability to pick up the phone. Call each other. 

Anita Kellogg: That's why I say I don't really count it as an agreement, but more than maybe an affirmation.

Right. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: So those were probably the pretty [00:54:30] notable things. The other couple of things that I wanted to talk about, it also came though, in, you know, we talk about statecraft and I want to talk about positive elements of statecraft. And again, America showed how incapable it is of this lately, because this.

At APEC, Biden was supposed to announce a U. S. led digital trade deal as part of the Indo Pacific economic framework and had to back out of doing that at the last minute because of opposition by Democrats. So, I [00:55:00] mean, yeah. Yeah. It's very disappointing. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, and I don't know the, I mean, do you like the full details of, of the objective, objections around it?

I mean, this just had to do with digital trade and it was too It was going to be similar to what we have around digital trade between Canada and Mexico and offering that kind of for the Asia Pacific countries. Yeah. What was the, it was tied again to labor? No. 

Anita Kellogg: Digital tech companies [00:55:30] or? Well, what I read, it just was kind of vague, like opposition to freer trade.

And regulation of large digital companies, technological. 

Ryan Kellogg: Okay, so it's more going anti tech company. Perhaps. Stance, yeah. Perhaps. But regardless, it's showing, even at this much watered down compared to the, uh, the TPP. I don't know 

Anita Kellogg: if people agree. I don't think there's comparable. [00:56:00] There's no trade deals. 

Ryan Kellogg: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

We had talked about the Indo Pacific Economic Framework. And the weakness of it. At the time, it was pretty weak compared to the TPP. But they came and implement a small component of this proposed framework. Yeah. Successfully. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean, and just the general U. S. weakness on the U. S. negotiated this trade deal.

Right. It was U. S. led effort. Yeah. And then it can't even implement [00:56:30] its own trade 

Ryan Kellogg: deals. Now, what did you think of? Cause I know this got a lot of criticism from the right and the left, but so they hosted this dinner. And it was 40, 000 to attend per head. So you could have dinner with Xi Jinping. And you had all the tech leaders there, like head of Apple and Google and all these people.

And he got a standing ovation. So the optics alone, I mean, what's your general thought process? And, and [00:57:00] also China's motivation. What was, why did China want to make this trip? And what are kind of the drivers behind it? I 

Anita Kellogg: think the drivers are more complex than some people have made it sound. 

Ryan Kellogg: What, so beyond the weakening Chinese economy?

Yes. So beyond their need for investment. 

Anita Kellogg: There's an argument, there's an argument that she agreed to this meeting because the Chinese economy is suffering somewhat and they are desperate to have more investment. I don't think things [00:57:30] are considered that dire in China. Even if you look at the issues, I think the meeting was going to come.

They needed to have things die down over the Chinese spy balloon and right all these other high level Diplomatic meetings with Yellen and Blinken. I think really it's been setting this up for a while. Yes Yeah, so I think this would have personally I think this would have occurred no matter what I do think she took this as an opportunity though, of course he did [00:58:00] to encourage instead of foreign companies moving out of China, he wants to encourage, obviously, it's beneficial for China to have more investment from these, these companies.

So I think. More investment or even at least realistically stopping the decoupling that is happening at a very small scale. I think it also shows that we talk about decoupling by these major tech companies and other companies. And I don't think it's motivated for [00:58:30] political reasons. I think some purely economic reasons as labor becomes more expensive in China.

If not exclusively that, then mostly that. And you see like these tech leaders. still willing, you know, interested in playing ball with China. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, to an extent, but I mean, they've, they've also been blocked out of their market or unfair competition. I mean, I'm thinking like the, the Googles and things like that.

I mean, I know Apple has, has had a fair amount of success [00:59:00] within China, obviously, although they are moving some of their. Factories out to, uh, to, to India, partially driven by the economics. 

Anita Kellogg: That's what I'm saying is Apple's this kind of famous case and people keep noting, well, look like they're now building iPhones in India.

And I think a lot of that has to do with economics, not political tensions. Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: I mean, one, because the, the optics of seeing our plutocrats, like, cheer Xi Jinping seems way [00:59:30] more jarring than it would have been, oh, I don't know, like, 15 years ago with, like, Hu Jintao or something. It's just, really, the optics of it and just kind of how the mindset of the relationship has changed from this economic opportunity for both parties to scene.

US's number one enemy. I mean, honestly, the head, the CCP, almost all Americans. Yeah. Well, Biden called [01:00:00] him a dictator to his face. Was that to his face or just at the press conference? 

Anita Kellogg: Cause I made it sound 

Ryan Kellogg: like it sounded like he was. I thought he was, I didn't watch the video. I just assumed he was like right there.

It's like, oh yeah, he's a dictator. Yeah. And I was like, that's pretty base Biden. 

Anita Kellogg: Like a reporter said, you still consider him a dictator to be a dictator. That 

Ryan Kellogg: was, yeah. And then did you see the video of Blinken? When he answered that question, it was, it was a pain to look, it was a very pain look. [01:00:30] There was like, they zoomed in on it too as Biden was answering and it, Biden, and Blinken's just kind of like gritting, like a look of horror kind of in his eyes too.

That's 

Anita Kellogg: amazing. I'll have to look that up. Yes. So the terminology kind of doesn't matter that much. Although the way it will be taken in China is one thing. No, of course it's jarring because the whole. The whole language about China, as I've remarked, transformed [01:01:00] so quickly ever since 2016, 2017. And it's kind of spread throughout the West that China's our competitor, they're stealing our technology, we're not benefiting from this economic relationship.

There are national security concerns. Yeah, the rhetoric has just turned against China and everywhere. But so I, I think though it's interesting because we assume that business is going along with this, that they agree with these statements. And [01:01:30] I think from a business perspective, I don't think they agree.

I think they're willing to allow some of their technology to be stolen because they see the profits of still wanting to be in the Chinese market, seeing that as such a large market, I think as a source for making cheaper goods, I mean, the critique of that is like. We teach them a lot of technology and how to make stuff, but from a business perspective, from purely economic [01:02:00] reasons, that makes sense, even if it kind of gives China some long term edges over the United States.

Ryan Kellogg: So do you see, I mean, going back to kind of the thesis of business having an influence over foreign policy and is that considerably weakened? So if business has a interest in maintaining these ties, but the political. Calculus and certainly the calculus from polling and voting populace is [01:02:30] strongly against China and the CCP can business overcome that in any way and see a softening of the direction that we're heading in, which is basically the direction that we're heading in in this antagonism.

towards, towards China is, is just going to continue, especially under a Xi Jinping. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I think businesses have been trying to kind of, despite every time people send me articles about companies wanting to leave China, I think business has pretty consistently [01:03:00] put some soft power in there and trying to use, like, understanding where the rhetoric is and where the feeling is, but to definitely try to soften that.

Are they being successful? I don't know. I think they're balancing their own economic interest with the risk of conflict happening between the U. S. and China. I think that is coming into more consideration and into more play. But I definitely, I don't know, they weren't able to reverse [01:03:30] the tariffs. And I think a lot of them wanted to do that.

So I think they're coming up against an issue that has so much political salience. that it's been difficult for them to have the type of influence we usually see. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I mean, it seems like the consensus view is like, well, this is nice that they're talking, but fundamentally the direction is going to continue in the way that is going, has been going since 2016 or so.

The 

Anita Kellogg: competition from [01:04:00] China is not going to suddenly go away. And that's the concern, right? It's really in the, Latter 2010s, we're really see like Chinese being challenging us on scientific journal publications and patent creation. And suddenly there's this recognition that, that China is not just this low end manufacturer for the U.

S. anymore, but that it's actually now competing with developing the newest [01:04:30] technologies. And. I think it's kind of waking up to that, to see that they were truly challenging the U. S. on a number of technological and scientific advancements that has, that threat's not going to go away. And I think that sense of threat is very permissive in the overall thinking about China.

Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: but the approach isn't just limited to, to the, I mean, definitely, I mean, the CHIPS Act was. was designed to, What [01:05:00] has 

Anita Kellogg: to do with technological advancement, 

Ryan Kellogg: counter, counter the technological advancement, but it's also going to be aggressive posturing within like the South China Sea, not to get too off tangent, but there was a really interesting article in the New York Times that showed how China uses its kind of quasi civilian, but also military fishing eats that they kind of add extra armor and sometimes guns too.

that helps reinforce that, the red line. So they will [01:05:30] go, I mean, you, there was a conflict recently on Philippines trying to resupply one of its island locations. It's kind of accepted Philippine territory, but you had a series of not Chinese naval vessels, but Chinese maritime vessels that are like quasi civilian, but quasi military.

But they have thousands of these, and they use this to enforce Their claims within the South China Sea and actually show it visually like they [01:06:00] show it over time like the the because they can do the the tracking of ships and they show like all these vessels and they kind of they congregate and almost reinforce the famous like dashed red line on these territories.

So it's it's it's kind of I mean, it's obviously action like that. And basically, the article concluded that they de facto control Transcribed I mean, yeah, the U. S. maintains free navigation, and it's not like it's cut off trade, but in terms of the smaller nations and their [01:06:30] territorial integrity, China's very effective in kind of enforcing these boundaries through these ways short of direct conflict with their actual navy.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, I'm not surprised that China has done that. It's kind of fascinating, really, these measures. I still think a lot of the concerns we show economic with export controls now of, of what U. S. companies can invest in, in [01:07:00] China with the CHIPS Act, I think it's more about economic technological competition.

Ryan Kellogg: So not about kind of direct aggressive action within Asia 

Anita Kellogg: Pacific. Yeah. I don't think that's coming into economic decisions. Okay. That's just my feeling. Yeah. Yeah. Well, at least my thesis is certainly that business can exert more influence over preventing some of that direct conflict or [01:07:30] de escalating some of that conflict, you're saying, these fishing vehicles.

But I mean, I think it's getting harder in China because of Xi's crackdown on so much of the economy. And I think it makes military and economic issues more separate. 

Ryan Kellogg: Okay, well, so wrapping up. It did, I saw it end on a, a positive note. Oh, yeah. What's the over under that we get, uh, some pandas [01:08:00] back in the U.

S.? Oh, I know. Xi Jinping said, hey, uh, we heard that, well, he mentioned a specific, I think it was California. So maybe it was the San Diego pandas. Mm hmm. Have they left already? Yes, they must have. They, I asked. So they were like, yeah, maybe we'll, we'll represent our friendship, we'll, we'll send some more pandas your way.

Yeah. So what's, cause we were, we were, everybody in D. C. was sad to see. Mm hmm. The pandas put in a FedEx box and it shipped over to Dulles and then flew and left, and now I think Zoo Attendant's gonna be way [01:08:30] down, because I'll be honest, it's not the best zoo. I mean, it's a, it's an okay zoo. But people came for those pandas, that was the number one draw.

Anita Kellogg: I know, we were there this summer and so fortunately we got 

Ryan Kellogg: them really up close, yeah. Yeah, they were. So do you think, do you think the U. S., because the only pandas left are in Atlanta right now, do you think the U. S. is going to get some more pandas? What's the, who we're under on that? I think the under.

No. 

Anita Kellogg: Why would they recall all these pandas just to be like, okay, we're going to bring. It's 

Ryan Kellogg: part of the, it was [01:09:00] part of the, they have set agreements cause they have to return. I mean the way that was explained right in the newscast is they reach a certain age and to go back to the wildlife preserve. So they have these contracts on the loan you a 

Anita Kellogg: little bit of a coincidence that we definitely being punished 

Ryan Kellogg: and then Moscow gets a bunch of pandas.

Yeah. It's definitely. I'll 

Anita Kellogg: take medium. Medium? That at least one panda comes to the 

Ryan Kellogg: United States. Yeah, I think, [01:09:30] I think, I think San Diego gets at least one back. Yeah. I think D. C. I think Newsom's actually Yeah, Republicans would definitely say this. Newsom's a little too buddy buddy. Cause he's, he's full on, you know, the climate warrior, making trips to Beijing, trying to negotiate agreements, like, I mean, I don't know if Newsom had a big role.

He was, he was at the meeting, he was definitely featuring a lot of the photo ops. Obviously, Democrats have an interest in positioning him for 2028 as a national prospect. So I say, [01:10:00] yeah, maybe, maybe California didn't. Getting a panda. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, like what is the San Diego Zoo without pandas? Like that's my whole association with that 

Ryan Kellogg: zoo.

That was a big, though, outdoor zoo. Yeah, it's a, no, it's a really nice zoo. It's a nice zoo, so I don't, I don't see that losing. No, I'm not saying. Yeah, you're right. Those, those two zoos, you just, I didn't even know there were other pandas. I didn't even know Atlanta had pandas. I associate the only places in the U.

S. that have pandas were D. C. and San Diego. [01:10:30] And, and that's why it was special to go to those zoos. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, so I'll take very medium odds like that could happen. 

Ryan Kellogg: I'm going to put it at 75%. Really? That California gets a panda. And the next five years. Wait, four years. Four years? Four years, yep. 

Anita Kellogg: Why four years?

Any kind of conflicts can happen when you're down four years. 

Ryan Kellogg: Nope. I said this. I'm going to stand by. 

Anita Kellogg: Well, at least we have it recorded. Yep. [01:11:00] Well, I think that brings us to the end of this episode of Kellogg's Global Politics. You can visit our website at www. kelloggsglobalpolitics. com. And follow us on Twitter at Global Kellogg, or me, AR Kellogg.

Ryan Kellogg: You can also reach us by email, so anita at kelloggsglobalpolitics. com, and myself, Ryan at kelloggsglobalpolitics. com. As always, please see the show notes for all the articles we discussed in this episode. If you like the show, please take time to tell your friends [01:11:30] and share it on your social sites. It's a simple, quick, and free way to support the show.

Thanks, everyone. Thanks. Bye.