The following transcript is unofficial and unverified.

Kasie Hunt

Didn’t realize my Michigan ties were going to be highlighted today. I also happen to have grown up in Chester County just down the road. So go birds! We’ve got an exciting week here and I’m thrilled to be here. I’m so honored that Senator Coons invited me to be here with you and to host this conversation today. It really is wonderful to be back in in this area and feel a little bit of a part of what you all are doing to keep this region so vibrant and such a critical part of our country. Jake Sullivan, thank you. I’m not sure exactly how Mr. Sullivan is able to see me or not, but hopefully can hear me. Thank you so much for joining us today. And I think if we’ll just dive right in here, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I know certainly the talk of my news network as well as my family text chain conversations are currently centered on a Chinese balloon that recently was shut down. And so, let me start with you National Security Adviser solvent on this, which is just to ask, I mean, have we learned anything yet from the balloon that we shot down over the weekend?

 

Jake Sullivan

I just want to say thank you to Senator Coons, to Liz, to USGLC, for giving me the opportunity to be here today. And I’m sorry, I wasn’t able to be there in person. The short answer to your question, Casey is yes. In fact, what the President did when he was briefed about the presence of this Chinese surveillance balloon flying over us airspace, was directed military to shoot it down as soon as doing so would be safe in terms of avoiding any possible risk to civilians on the ground. The military recommended to him that he wait, or they wait, until the balloon was over water in US territorial airspace and take it down there because they could better control potential falling debris, metal debris, and ensure that none of it would fall on to American citizens. So, what the President then directed was while the balloon was transiting the United States, the intelligence community and the military used every asset at their disposal to collect against the bullet to determine what it was carrying to learn more about its tradecraft and its capabilities. And we were able to do that over the time that the balloon was also able to ensure the protection of any sensitive information that the balloon would not be able to collect against us because we knew exactly where it was going before it got there. And we can take action to make sure that it didn’t pose any danger, not just physical danger to Americans, but really any material intelligence risk, because we knew how it was traveling. Then when the President ordered the balloon, to be shut down, the military executed that operation in a way in which the payload splashed into water, and they are now in the process of trying to retrieve it. That will take time. It is off the coast few miles of the United States and there are vessels from both the Navy and the Coast Guard on station, working as we speak, to recovering so that we can then exploit what we recover and learn even more than we have learned and the military advise the President that actually a shoot down over water would create a greater possibility that we could effectively exploit the wreckage than if it were shot down over land. So, it will take some time and people all of us, including myself, will have to be patient as we do the recovery and do the exploration but we have already been able to learn a fair amount about the capabilities in the tradecraft of this balloon because we were able to monitor it through multiple different means as it traverses the United States.

 

Kasie Hunt

One thing we learned from you all over the weekend as well is that there are these balloons also traverse the United States through during the Trump Administration, which it sounds like we just learned, why are we just learning now about balloons that traverse the country during the Trump administration?

 

Jake Sullivan

Well, one thing that President Biden directed the intelligence community to do early in his tenure was to increase both our vigilance and the assets that we were deploying to be able to detect Chinese efforts to spy against the United States through multiple different leads. And because the intelligence community made this priority at the direction of President Biden, we enhanced our surveillance over our territorial airspace, we enhanced our capacity to be able to detect things that the Trump Administration was unable to detect. And we’re also able to go back and look at the historical patterns. And that led us to come to understand that during the Trump Administration, as you said, there were multiple instances where the surveillance balloons traversed American airspace and American territory and of course, the first time that any American President has ordered a shutdown and one of these balloons was on Saturday when Joe Biden did it. And you know, it just goes to show you that in order to effectively protect the interests of the United States, you’ve got to have a full spectrum of allocation of assets, resources and priorities, to be able first to detect when things are happening and then to take action against.

 

Kasie Hunt

Moving the conversation back into the room because Senator Coons and Senator Portman both seem to have reactions to what Jake was offering us there. So, Senator Coons it’s your stage. Let me start with you. What do you make of what we heard from the National Security visor here and how the Biden ministration is handled this?

 

Senator Chris Coons

National Security Adviser Jake, welcome. Thank you. By the way, Room Rater gives you a five – beautiful background. I think it is wonderful to have the three of us engaged in a conversation and I would urge that we move on. I do think this is an episode where there’s been a lot of back and forth in Washington, but the end result is that, I believe, we will have learned more from this than the Chinese will. I think it’s more important, symbolically, in terms of what message the Chinese were trying to send us, by deploying over the mainland of the United States a spy balloon, that we would inevitably detect, and I think inevitably intercept, at a moment when they were just launching charm offensive that was more offensive than charming in its actual execution. And so, I think we have an opportunity here to discuss and to revisit, what do we do next? How do we manage the US-China relationship when our economies are deeply integrated? When our work together to confront the global pandemic and climate change is in some ways more important than ever? But where demonstrably hostile acts are occurring, not just in the South China Sea, not just in cyberspace, but now over our sovereign territory. So, I think that’s the real challenge in front of us.

 

Kasie Hunt

Senator Portman, you had a reaction when we were talking about the Trump Administration what we may or may not have known about these balloons during that time.

 

Senator Rob Portman

So, Jake is sitting I think in front of Teddy Roosevelt there so this is a this is a bipartisan White House appearance with Teddy and Jake. But listen, I have a very simple view on this. With regard to whether the Trump Administration knew about it or not, I’m told they did not know about it. So, there was no opportunity to take action because somehow it didn’t filter its way up to the to the decision makers. So, that’s something we have to look into. Why was that true? And as the National Security Adviser was saying perhaps it’s because we have better monitoring now than we did then. However, my daughter-in-law was in South Carolina and could see the balloons. I don’t know how sophisticated we needed to be in terms of monitoring.

 

Kasie Hunt

Does seem to be a key difference.

 

Senator Rob Portman

My view is we should have, we should have taken it down. Most of Montana is public land as you know, having spent some time out there, there would be a way, I think, to retrieve it on land easier than water. So, I would have done that. But that is a decision that was made. That’s, you know, something that the President decided to, to tell the military to do distance they could as I understand it. I wish they had done it right away, they will descend a stronger message. But I’m going to take the other side on another issue and probably end up taking off everybody as a result. I think the trip to China should have been continued. I think that dialogue with China is incredibly important right now. My biggest concern of China is miscommunication. And for all we know, this whole balloon incident may have been miscommunication. I mean, I agree with Chris seems sort of illogical that they would be doing this at a time when they’re trying to extend the olive branch and trying to resolve some of our conflicts. And so, my concern is – we’re not talking enough to China to avoid the possibility of a miscommunication that could have disastrous consequences. So, I would have kept the meeting on and put at the top of the meeting. What the hell are you doing with these balloons? You know, I mean, this is crazy, not just us. But there’s apparently one year old for Costa Rica this morning. So, this makes no sense. So, but there’s so many issues we have with China we need to resolve and talk through. So obviously, the wiggers and human rights issues and what’s going on with Hong Kong and Taiwan and disinformation in Tibet, and then obviously what’s happening in the South China Sea and elsewhere, the military aggression by China. The unfair trade practices with Chris and I have worked on quite a bit, and it continues. So, we have so many areas where we need to talk things through with China. My view is China. Right now, if they want to extend an olive branch, the simplest thing to do which would change the dynamic immediately, would be to say to Russia, stop this invasion. If China were simply to take a stand, which is so logical to say, this outrageous war which is illegal, unprovoked, and brutal, must stop not that they need to provide arms to Ukraine, like 50 other countries have, or even take Ukraine side, but just to say this makes no sense. If they were to do that, I think it would follow relations immediately, not just with the American government and the Biden decision with the American people.

 

Kasie Hunt

Senator Coons, to kind of bring back to what you had mentioned that you’d like to focus on here. I know you have talked so much and worked so much on China’s spending in the developing world, for example, all of these other economic partnerships that, I know, affect a lot of the people in this room in your home state of Delaware. What do you think? I mean, do you agree with Senator Portman that Secretary Blinken should have gone to China Regardless of this? Did the Administration do the right thing? What is the best way to figure out how to thread this needle between competing on the one hand and making sure that we’re maximizing our own opportunity on the other?

 

Senator Chris Coons

Well, first with regards to the developing world, in particular Africa, we have to show up. In meeting after meeting, over the last four years, with community leaders, with heads of state, with regional organizations like the African Development Bank there has been a noticeable fading of American engagement, investment, and influence on the African continent. We are the principal provider of public health supportive humanitarian relief. We were the foreign trade partner of choice, but China has dramatically invested in their diplomatic presence and their economic presence and in their infrastructure investments. We should not be forcing countries to choose. We should not expect that we will be the exclusive security partner or the exclusive trade partner. I think, in the end, as was the case with distributing vaccines to the world, the developing world saw a critical difference in whose vaccines were more effective, and which countries tried to extract some concessions, or some change in position, in exchange for getting vaccines. We in the end, I think we do better when our engagement with the developing world is based in our values. To Rob’s point, the best solution here might have been to continue engagement and to go into meet with Xi. I can agree with the concept that we need more dialogue, and certainly with the idea that we do not have enough military-to-military relationships to be able to de-escalate, likely encounters, as we talked about. One of the moments in the war in Ukraine that was a greatest risk was when there was a missile that fell in southeastern Poland, and it wasn’t initially clear what had caused it. And the United States in my view played a critical role in avoiding an immediate escalation in pressing for consultation and conversation in creating a few days of space before there was an escalation to a potential NATO-Russia conflict directly. We don’t have the same channels with China that we did even with the Soviet Union or that we do today with Russia. And we need to have those channels so that an incident, a naval incident in the South China Sea, or an aviation incident around the perimeter of Taiwan, doesn’t precipitate a crisis. I would agree with Rob. There’s some early evidence that this may have been a misunderstanding, that within the upper echelons of the Chinese government, they may not have intended this balloon to go on this path. I don’t know that yet. We will have a classified briefing later this week. But to Jake, and to Rob, I think it’s important that we also talk amongst ourselves, that we come up with a common perspective on US-China engagement that is not merely driven by the partisan developments of who’s running for president next and who wants to out compete who on cable. One of the reasons I value Rob’s friendship and partnership is, he’s not someone who’s just looking for the next cable hit, no disrespect, Casey. And one of our challenges in our politics is that in analyzing something as relatively simple and recent, as this balloon that floated over our country from China, and is as consequential as what should our security relationship be with our allies in the South Pacific and Southeast Asia and with China? We can’t afford to make the mistake of simplistic and jingoistic solutions. We need to craft an enduring bipartisan approach. Because the moment that we are sailing into now is one of tremendously challenging and rough seas. We need to be aligned domestically so that we can be more successful globally.

 

Kasie Hunt

I heard in there an excellent question for Jake, which is what do we know about the Chinese intent here? If you are going to be briefing Congress later on this week, was it an accident? Was it a misunderstanding? Was it a deliberate provocation? Where is your current? Where’s the Administration’s current thinking on what this meant?

 

Jake Sullivan

So, sitting here today, I’m not going to characterize the Chinese government’s their knowledge, intention, strategy, lack of strategy. We will continue to sort that out, assess that, and then have the opportunity to consult with the House and the Senate on it. He didn’t have a clear and consensus picture on the question you just posed, we’ll lay that out publicly as well. But for the moment, conclusions about kind of who knew what when? In Beijing, that’s something we’re still piecing through. I will say just listening to both Senator Portman and Senator Coons. Two points, I’d like to make one. I think it was extremely important that we sustained a bipartisan foundation for our policy towards the People’s Republic of China. And I actually believe that the record over the past couple of years has been strong. Democrats and Republicans came together around foundational investments in American innovation in the Chips and Science Act. Democrats and Republicans came together to support a robust defense bill as part of the Omnibus at the end of last year. Democrats and Republicans have come together to support our efforts, led by people like Senator Coons, to enhance America’s capacity to compete effectively all over the world and to have American, unique American, attributes of our ability to deliver on health and food and technology for people in the Americas and Africa and Asia and elsewhere. Show that, in fact, United States has a strong value proposition and a stronger value proposition than any of our competitors, including China. So, I do think it’s really important, especially when we’re at a moment of kind of high political dudgeon on cable news and so forth that we continue to stay focused on a North Star of trying to work together on a smart, strong, effective strategy that puts the United States in the strongest opposition to compete effectively. The second point that I want to register is with respect to the importance of diplomacy. President Biden has made clear that we seek competition, not conflict, with China that we are not looking for a new Cold War. We are not looking for competition to tip over to confrontation, and that does require open channels, military channels of the kind that Senator Coons just discussed, and high-level diplomacy of the kind that Senator Portman was referring to. The determination, with respect to the Secretary’s trip, was not about cutting off high-level diplomacy to China, on any sustained basis. It was about a judgment that, in this moment, his trip would be as likely to contribute to misunderstanding as it would be to deeper understanding. That, in fact, the trip is so important, covering so many different subjects that mattered to the fundamental national interest of the United States and our allies. A better context, a better set of circumstances for the trip, would enable it to succeed much more than going in the middle of this issue with them. So, Secretary Blinken chose his words carefully, he talked about postponing the trip, not canceling it, or ending all foreseeable high-level communication with the Chinese government. That is not going to happen. So, I think in principle, and in strategy, Senator Portman and the administration are very much aligned on the tactical question in this trip, there might be a difference, but I think that was more to do with how we think diplomacy can be most effectively conducted not, whether in fact, high-level diplomacy is necessary to manage this consequential relationship.

 

Kasie Hunt

Very interesting. Thank you for that. We put a button on this China conversation before we move on to Ukraine, but Senator Portman, I just want to kind of give you a chance to respond because as I was listening to both Senator Coons and, and to Jake, I take your point about the trip and what you mean there. However, I will say many members of your party were very quick to politicize this balloon, and you can understand why that that calculation may have affected also how the Biden administration or Democrats were thinking about all this. You obviously recently retired from the Senate, much to the chagrin of many of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But the reality is there are fewer and fewer Republican politicians like you walking in the halls of Congress now. And I’d be be curious, your point about bipartisanship… What’s going on to demonstrate strength to our adversaries overseas? What do you say to people who are also Republicans in situations like this about how they should be talking about it?

 

Senator Rob Portman

Well, I hesitate to speak for all my Republican colleagues. But look, I agree with Republican colleagues who were saying once you saw that thing, let’s shoot it down. The decision was made not to but also, I think some my Republican colleagues probably are less interested in dialog, viewing China already as an enemy state. I view China as an adversary. And I having been a US Trade Representative and have negotiated with China. They’re a tough adversary, they don’t play fair. There’s no question about that. But to move from adversary to competitor is better for us than moving from adversary to enemy. And that’s the challenge we have – how do you have a clear line of communication? My experience with senior Chinese officials is that the clearer you can be the better. You have to be forceful. I agree with what Jake said about the importance of diplomacy right now. So, I would say to my colleagues, you know, engaging with China and making very clear what our concerns are, is the top priority right now to avoid something more dangerous. Taiwan is the particular flashpoint. I mean, it. You saw how the Chinese responded to this balloon issue. At first, it was almost saying it didn’t happen. Then they said, well, I’m sorry. Now they’re saying we overreacted. But it’s not the kind of visceral reaction you get if we say anything about Taiwan. And I was in Taiwan last year. It’s 90 miles straight over to China. Ninety percent of high-end semiconductors are still made in Taiwan. Taiwan is a thriving democracy, free market country, great allies of the United States. We should do a trade agreement with and by the way, which Chris has been working on. So that’s the biggest issue right now – how to allow the Chinese government to know that should they make a mistake and invade Taiwan, that the consequences would be very detrimental, not just from United States, but from, I hope, the free world as we’ve seen with Ukraine. Again, there are countries all over the world that have taken the side of Ukraine because they have taken the side of freedom. There is an opportunity here for diplomacy, and a whole range of issues, but that one in particular we need to be absolutely firm. Jake also mentioned the bipartisanship at the end of the year with regard to defense spending, I think it’s very important to note. Chris and others support it, higher levels of defense and probably many Democrats would have supported it, but Ronald Reagan used to say, you get peace through strength. Jack Kennedy used to say something similar in a different way – America, by destiny, rather than choice, are the watch guards on the walls of world freedom. Without us having the ability to intervene, the ability to project force, the world is a less peaceful place. It’s more dangerous and volatile place and I think that’s a place where I hope Republicans continue to work with Democrats and ensure that our unique role in the world, whether we want it or not, by destiny, rather than choice here we are. We’re the ones that keeps international commerce moving through the Straits of Hormuz and the South China Sea, and we’re the ones who ensure that there is more transparency, less corruption around the world through trade and other ways. The healthcare issues we talked about earlier, America has played a singular role there to help millions of people to be able to achieve their God-given potential in life. That’s where I think America’s role in the world, and this organization, USGLC, does a great job of that, has to be continually focused on both parties, Republican and Democratic.

 

Kasie Hunt

I want and that’s a great segue to talk a little bit more in depth about the situation in Ukraine and what America is doing as that continues on. Jake Sullivan and let me start with you here because we are coming up on a critical anniversary here February 24. How is the Administration thinking about marking the anniversary? Is there still a plan for the President, potentially, to visit Europe to focus on that? And how do you view that moment? In a historical sense?

 

Jake Sullivan

Thanks, Casey, one thing before I switch to Ukraine, I wanted to reinforce the point that Senator Portman just made about peace through strength. I think from the Biden Administration’s perspective, having the strong deterrent capacity of the US military, which has helped safeguard peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region for decades, is vital, and we need to keep pace with the evolving challenges. But I’d make one amendment to that, which is, for President Biden, peace through strength means peace through American and allied strength. And what we’ve seen in the last year is quite remarkable. Japan has announced that it’s going to go to 2% of GDP for defense spending – meeting that target that we ask our European partners to meet – as well as to develop new capabilities so that it can be part of a strong allied response to aggression in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has joined with us and the United Kingdom in the [inaudible] partnership, and we will be providing them with the technology for nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines. Secretary Austin just came back from a trip to the Philippines where the Philippines have agreed to allow US forces to be based at multiple sites in the Philippines to be able to distribute our force presence there, and so much else. I think a big part of the story of peace through strength in the Pacific for the United States, in the future, is about investing in ourselves and our capacities and not having to rely, of course, on anyone but ourselves. But being able to leverage the force multipliers of our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific is something that gives us a strategic advantage and helps contribute to peace and security. That’s been a hallmark of what we’ve tried to reinforce over the course of the last two years. And that has also had substantial bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. On Ukraine, I don’t have any travel to announce, or any specific plans to announce for the president for February 24. But I will say this, one year ago even today, as we were warning about the possibility of an impending invasion, the likelihood of an impending invasion, I think there was a view in many quarters, including in quarters in the US government, that the Russian military, given its size and given its capacity, would move rapidly on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, and Kyiv would fall. And people were bracing for that, they were bracing for the possibility that in late February or in March of 2022, Kyiv would fall, and Ukraine would fall. So the single most important message that President Biden will reinforce on February 24, 2023 is – one year later, Kyiv stands, Ukraine stands, and it stands strong and proud and brave and that’s because of the incredible bravery and sacrifice of Ukrainian people and Ukrainian armed forces, but it is also because the United States has played a central role in galvanizing a global response in providing the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian people with the tools that they need to defend themselves, supporting on a humanitarian and economic basis the Ukrainian society and the Ukrainian economy. I think we all, Democrats and Republicans, can be really proud of the contributions that we have made, though, of course, we should first and foremost give credit where credit is due to these bills, and Senator Portman and Senator Coons from the very beginning, were two people – and I’m not just saying this because I’m on this panel, I have said this to them personally, I’ve said this publicly – in the US Congress, who can be counted as better friends of Ukraine and better friends and the principles for which we are fighting there and who, frankly, at times, have pushed us in the administration to do more and move faster. But I think the President will really want to reinforce just what a significant accomplishment has already been achieved. And then to reinforce how much more must be done, how we are committed to doing it, and how we will ask, on a bipartisan basis, the US Congress to join us in doing that work. And I think organizations like USGLC can play a very vital role in helping to sustain the broad level of public support that has enabled us to provide this massive level of assistance to Ukraine, which in turn has helped them be able to defend their sovereignty, protect their country, and safeguard their freedom.

 

Kasie Hunt

Jake’s absolutely right. I mean, Senator Portman, I know you’ve been working on Ukraine issues since 2014. The two of you traveled there together. Senator Coons, I know you’ve focused on this incredibly throughout recent years. Jake also mentioned that sometimes you’ve pushed the Administration on this. We saw tanks sent to Ukraine… this question about fighter jets. Do you think we should be doing more than we are doing? Should we be doing on February 24? Should we announce that we’re sending those jets to Ukraine? I mean, what are the next steps here to allow them to continue this fight?

 

Senator Chris Coons

I think Kasie, a key part of President Biden success has been his approach, which as Jake mentioned, has been to see our security intimately connected with our allies and not trying to go it alone, not trying to secure Ukraine’s capacity to fight back the Russian invasion, with just our support but to do it through our allies. That has meant, at times, that the Administration, the senior national security levels of the Administration, have done more consulting that some of the more impatient of us in Congress might have wanted, in particular, with regards to the Leopards versus Abrams. I was with a delegation of a dozen members House and Senate, bicameral, in a meeting in Europe, and came back and said to the Administration, unanimously, this delegation wants to see the Abrams given, if only to unlock the Leopards, which are critical to what’s going to happen in the spring. If we’re going to get there in three months, let’s get there in three weeks. One of the things that I think is positive is that every time a new weapons platform has been discussed, considered, and ultimately given to the Ukrainians, estimates have been given of how long and complicated the training will be. The Ukrainians have performed spectacularly. They’ve demonstrated a capacity to not just master and deploy the battlefront complex NATO systems, but many systems. I mean, their frontline is a hodgepodge of systems from France and Italy and Germany and the United Kingdom and the United States. Things that have been taken out of storage and refurbished from our Soviet era, and things that are cutting edge. I’ll get to your question, as I always do, Kasie, I tease you about this. All the time. I do. I understand and respect President Biden’s crisp no in response to the question “Will we be sending F16s”? I understood that – Jake you’re free to correct me – as a right now, eventually, we need to have a conversation about security guarantees for Ukraine. How can Ukraine be confident going into negotiations with the Russians, as at some point, they must? If there are no guarantees for their security because, let’s be honest, Putin isn’t going to stop. He first invaded countries near him Moldova, Georgia, in 2008. He next invaded and occupied and attempted to illegally annexed chunks of Ukraine in 2014. This war has been going on for a long time. And I am confident that Putin is absolutely determined to try again this spring to go after Kyiv, to go after the majority of Ukraine, and I don’t think he stops until we are able to provide enough security through providing weapons systems that will allow the Ukrainians to defend their homeland against repeated Russian efforts. Will that ultimately involve advanced fighter jet from some Western source? I think it will. The training will take a long time. I would get going on the training and make the decision about whether and how many and what platforms later. But for the Ukrainians, a principle and repeated request of us has been missile defense systems. They’ve been provided tanks they’re being provided a whole range of armored personnel carriers and advanced small arms. They’re being provided. The thing that we need to solve for in the long term is what will give Ukraine the capacity to achieve peace, first through victory on the battlefield, but second by having the weapon systems they need to be able to deter a future Russian invasion.

 

Kasie Hunt

Jake, how do you respond to that? Are the Americans going to train Ukrainians to fly the F16?

 

Jake Sullivan

I’m afraid that, today, I’m not in a position to add to what President Biden said when he was asked the question. I’ve got nothing more to offer you. Other than one point on top of what Senator Coons said, which is, for a significant number of both courses of action – on weapons systems, other elements of how we support the Ukrainians in the conflict in Ukraine—we are constantly engaging in and consulting with allies and partners, getting their perspective, and we’re talking to the Ukrainians, at some level every single day on what their needs are. And that has meant that over the course of the past year, as Senator Coons pointed out, we have advanced the ball down the field in terms of the types of systems that we provided. Senator Coons is also right that we are thinking, not just about today’s fight, but about the future capacity for Ukraine to defend itself and deter Russian aggression down the road. So, all of these are considerations as we look at the question you posed, in other questions on other systems. But that’s all about the level of principle, on the specifics of this system in this context, we’ll just leave it at what the President said, and, you know, we’ll continue to do the work that we do and consulting with Ukrainians in our allies.

 

Kasie Hunt

Senator Portman, you wanted to jump in?

 

Senator Rob Portman

Well, as Jake said earlier, sometimes we have pushed hard and I’ve certainly been guilty of that

because my view has always been that the Ukrainians are simply asking for tools to defend themselves, and the quicker we do that to level at which they need to be able to repel the Russian invasion, is going to save lives. It’s going to save infrastructure. You see the incredible destruction, not just to the energy infrastructure, but the apartment building that was gone last week as an example, and so many civilian lives have been lost. The sooner the better on everything. And in some respects, the Administration has been very helpful there. In other respects, I think they have not been as forthcoming. I would just say on ATACMS, which is the long range missiles that the Ukrainians have been asking for, for months now, enables the Ukrainians to do something they can’t do now, which is to have the reach the Russians have, using some of the systems that we provided them, frankly, like the HIMARS, to be able to cut off the supply chains to be able to destroy some of the depots of ammunition. And that would have a huge impact, I’m told, by every Ukrainian military person I talked to and Ukrainian government. So why won’t we do that? It’s a question. And then with regard to planes, as with the Abrams tanks, and some other military technology, I think President Biden’s crisp no is taken by me as being “we’re not going to provide them”. But with all these weapons systems, many other countries have them and are interested in providing them to Ukraine. In the case of F16, my understanding is there are some countries that are interested in providing them, but they need approval from us because when we provide this equipment to another country, other allies, there’s a license agreement that goes with it, which makes sense. It says you cannot transfer that weapon to another country without our permission. You know, concerned, that it does not go to an adversary. But these countries are ready to do it. It would be like with the Abrams tanks, it is our ability to say, let’s take, as an example, Poland, which happened to have some neighbors already they want a lot more. If they wanted to provide the weapons, we’d have to provide permission. And with the F16, I won’t name the country so I’m not sure that that’s public information, but there are countries willing to provide them so that’s what we would need to do. And the training is an issue but let’s get started on it sooner rather than later as result. And then finally, I will say to this distinguished group, I think the most important thing that we can do short term is to provide more ammunition and weapons for the air defense system. That’s my biggest concern from when I talk to people in the military –on our side and on their side. This is not from classified briefings just open-source stuff. We have to be sure that there’s not an ammunition shortage, as they have run out of Soviet ammunition – Soviet era anti-air systems and the shifting to the NASAMS and shifting, eventually to the patriot and other systems – we need to provide ammunition to be able to do that and do that effectively. So, that, to me, is an immediate concern. I agree with Chris, and I think the Russians are trying to put together an offensive right now. President Zelensky would say the defensive is already ongoing, as we saw with the increased attacks in Kherson last week, but we need to be able to respond to that respond to it quickly. The final thing I will say is that, to my Republican colleagues who say, you know, this is a war that we should not be in… one, we’re not in it, they’re in it, we’re helping them to defend themselves but, two, think of the alternative. This is obviously our generation. This is the fight for freedom. But think of the alternative. If, as Jake suggested and I agree with him, the Russians have been able to come in without us providing the training, which was very important and the military equipment, they had occupied the entire country, we’d be hearing of all kinds of human rights abuses. And even if the Russians did not go beyond the borders, which is not what they’re saying – when they talked about recreating the Russian Federation or the Soviet Union, or the Empire, it does means all these other countries, it does mean Poland does mean the Baltics, does mean Romania, does mean Slovakia and so on – but let’s assume they stay within the boundaries of Ukraine still, four more countries would now be NATO partners of ours and on the border with Russia. What would we do? We’d be providing a lot of our military might, for those countries, they’d be Article Five reciprocal partners of ours. It’d be military equipment, there’d be troops, we would have to, right? And the whole world would be destabilized by this. So, when people say, “Gosh, why don’t we just stay out of this?” You can’t stay out of it. This is affecting the entire global economy in terms of energy, in terms of food, and certainly instability in Europe. But from a military perspective, the United States has obligations that we would have to be able to fulfill which would I think be far more expensive than even what we’re doing in Ukraine today by providing them the weapons to take the fight to Russia themselves.

 

Kasie Hunt

I’m so glad you brought that up because he took that last question right out of my mouth because as we know, you’re talking about providing ammunition, all these other things, that’s going to take Republicans in Congress, who now control the House, that’s going be a potentially big fight. So, I think very important that you address that. We have spent so much time – honestly, we could keep talking about China and Ukraine for quite some time to go. We haven’t had a chance to talk yet about the economy, which I know is an important piece of this conversation, Senator Coons, but we only have a few minutes left and I want to make sure we get some questions from the audience. So please don’t feel limited to China and Ukraine as you think of your questions here, but I think we’ve got someone with a microphone going around the room.

 

Question from Audience

Hi, there, thank you so much for your time, I’m Dennis Mahoney with Food for the Hungry. My question is, one of the silent stories of COVID-19 has been the backsliding of global health. Two other areas that we’ve seen backsliding occur is with decades of development as well as global health, which affects our global stability and American security. What can we be doing to get on the right track?

 

Senator Chris Coons

We need to sharpen and deploy the tools of development. You’ve heard in earlier panels that there’s been a significant loss not just in the United States, but globally, in life expectancy. As Senator Portman was just referencing, the war in Ukraine has also led to widespread challenges with food and fertilizer. We can and should redouble our efforts at food security and energy security and development. And I hope we can find in this Congress, a bipartisan path forward on trade, and using the attractiveness of the American economy, or ingenuity or innovation, to open up the doors to development for many countries around the world. All of these are challenging, none of those are easy. I don’t have simple answers for them. But as the chair of the subcommittee that tries to fund our global commitments, we continue to be the world’s powerhouse when it comes to the humanitarian side of development, to public health, and to food security. We need to get our partners and allies to do more, and we need to do it smarter and faster. If we’re going to stay ahead of the global challenges being caused by the pandemic and its impact on the word, Ukraine and its impact, and climate change and its impact, this is going to be a critical century for human development. Next question.

 

Question from the Audience

Foreign affairs, international affairs, it’s certainly very complicated. How in the world though, can you talk about it in a way that doesn’t have the general American public associating our national and international rivals with the folks that we see in our communities every day because as we have conversations around China being our adversary, all I think about is folks in my district, in my community, looking at our Chinese American or Korean American residents, and thinking that they’re part of the enemy as we continue to move into the next presidential cycle, etc. How can you guys commit to talking about foreign affairs and global conflict without us devolving into understanding and looking at our neighbors a certain way?

 

Senator Chris Coons

I’ll try to be brief and hand the microphone to Rob. I think we have a challenge. The People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party may be our competitor, our adversary, but the Chinese people are not. While we may have grave concerns about the regime in Tehran and the way in which it’s oppressing the Iranian people, we need to be clear and open hearted about the Persian people, the ancient and positive culture of Iran, and engaging in politics. That seizes on differences of religion, of identity, of history, to demonize and then to try and sort of mobilize the fervor of the American people against a perceived other or enemy in ways that then weakens us domestically by dividing us domestically. That’s not healthy or constructive politics, and I think there are abundant lessons in our own national history, and globally, about how trying to mobilize American public sentiment by marginalizing the other really has harmful consequences and has had harmful consequences in each of our major global conflicts. I’m blessed to work with someone who has immediate family members who were Japanese Americans who were interned during the Second World War. That’s one of many chapters where we misread our core values. When I was sworn in, at my swearing in, was Daniel K. Inouye, an American who witnessed Pearl Harbor, and then who volunteered for a majority Japanese unit, and earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for his astonishing bravery on the battlefield. His willingness and ability to do that, even in service of a country that was treating unjustly Japanese Americans at the same time, is, to me one of the most remarkable chapters of rising above. We as political leaders, as elected leaders, should reduce the need for that sort of selfless sacrifice, and instead, elevate American values in how we engage with the world.

 

Senator Rob Portman

I want to give Jake a chance to respond if you’d like to, because I think some of this is about public figures speaking out. The fact is that it can never be tolerated. And that would include obviously the biggest megaphone of all, the President, but all of us have the responsibility to do that as American citizens. I worked for George W. Bush, as we said earlier, and one of the things that forever will remind me of the importance of this was when right after 911, you recall that very week, what did he do? He went to the mosque in Washington DC. Now, that symbol of him going to a mosque and talking about all the peaceful, peace-loving members of the Islamic community in the United States and that they should not be turned upon. I mean, that was very powerful. Not that it didn’t happen, because it did in some places. But it was, I think, even more difficult than our issue today with Russia or China. By the way, if you know any Americans of Russian descent, I would be shocked if they don’t tell you what they tell me, which is that they are aghast at what is happening. They think it is brutality beyond anything they can imagine. They’re embarrassed. And you know, so there is there’s also an unfairness about blaming Americans of a certain ethnic group, when in fact, sometimes they are the most patriotic of all but Jake, you may want to respond to him.

 

Jake Sullivan

Well, I think Senator Portman said very well that it begins with presidential leadership and President Biden has been very mindful of this challenge over the last two years and has frequently spoken out about it and actually has convened congressional leaders who are particularly focused on this because their constituents in their districts are worried. It might have been an elected official who’s dealing with this. I think you mentioned in your district, I think the way you put the question also was incredibly powerful and correct, which is that language matters. And we need to be disciplined in how we talk about the challenges that we face and make sure that we are clarifying that this is about a particular government operating with particular policies. It is not about people in a foreign country, and it is not about any American citizen whatsoever. So, this is a work in progress. It’s something that will require care and discipline and empathy. And also, just to take a step back, it will require avoiding hysteria, scare mongering, the kind of framing around this issue that not only contributes to the potential for hate, and for demonization of Americans, but also can contribute to really bad policy. We have to be clear. We have to be calm. We have to be steady in how we approach this set of issues, because that’s what’s in the national interest writ large, and also because that is what is most likely going to create the right environment for avoiding exactly the kinds of risks that underlies the question. That’s how President Biden has tried to approach this from the beginning. Being clear, calm, and steady on this issue, being empathetic about the risk of what it means for Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans in the United States. And overall, trying to make sure that we are focused on what the actual challenge is, and it is the policies of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, it is not about China as a country, the Chinese people, and it certainly not about patriotic American citizens, you know, who trace their roots back to China or any other country.

 

Kasie Hunt

Thanks so much for the thoughtful question. We’re just about out of time, although the journalist in me, unfortunately, cannot let the National Security Adviser go without asking for a brief preview, if you can offer one, of tomorrow’s State of the Union address, especially with regards to national security. So, Jake, if you have anything you could share with us.

 

Senator Rob Portman

Can I ask your question in a different way? Okay, so I was told Jake, that you are not able to join us this morning. Someone told me that was because you are working on the State of the Union address. The rumor true that you have turned to ChaptGPT to write the foreign policy parts of his speech tonight, and that’s why you’re able to be with us today.

 

Jake Sullivan

The embarrassing thing is, I put it into ChaptGPT and it probably produced a better first draft, I think, than we’ve now. I think we’ve got into place, but Senator Portman raises an extremely good topic that the next time we all get together we should cover. These advances in artificial intelligence are coming faster than I think most people anticipated with huge implications for national security as well as for economic security. The speech will be all human produced today. I cannot vouch for that being true 10 years from today, but today, human produced.

 

Kasie Hunt

All right. Well, thank you so much. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Senator Portman, Senator Coons, really appreciate you having me here. And I know our audiences does as well. And Senator Coons, I think you’ve got some closing remarks as we wrap up our summit.