Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is well today.
Hello and welcome to world today I'm Dean Honeyback Jean.
Coming up, Trump warns Zelensky to quickly negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine.
China is going to welcome foreign investment and more economies in more sectors of the Chinese economy.
And we will take a Germany's turbulent election race.
South Africa is hosting a meeting of G20 foreign ministers minus the United States.
To listen to this episode again or to catch upon on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.
US President Donald Trump has warned Ukrainian leader Valodimiy Zalensky that he better quickly negotiate an end to the war with Russia or risk not having a country to lead.
Trump on Wednesday used a very extended social media post to lash out at President Zelensky.
The rhetoric from Donald Trump came amid an escalating back in the force between the two leaders.
Zelensky responded by saying that Trump was falling into a disinformation trap.
US and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, agreeing to negotiate a settlement to an end to the war.
Ukrainian and European officials, however, were not included.
So joining us now on the line is Dr. Alexei Muravyoev, Associate Professor of National Security and Strategic Studies with Curtin University.
So thank you very much for joining us, Alexei.
First of all, why do you think President Trump Trump is now lashing out at President Zelensky.
Do you see this as part of a bigger tactic, for example, to try to strike a deal with Russia?
Well, I think it's a result of several considerations.
First of all, we need to take into account the long history between Trump and Zelensky that goes back to the first term of Trump's presidency when Zelensky didn't want to cooperate with with Trump administration 1 .0 in terms of investigating Joe Biden's family business dealings in Ukraine which Trump wanted to to look into as part of his political tactic the Soviet Democrats.
Secondly he would remember that President Zelensky and his team for all the time were open this sidelining and thanking the Democrats, including during the last round of presidential elections in the United States, even to the point when during the U .S.
presidential campaign, Kyiv was accused by the Republicans of effectively opening this sidelining and trying to lobby the interests of the Democrats.
So I think there is a bit of a personal sentiment that Trump developed, a negative personal sentiment towards Zelensky, and that's what excused that particular collision over Zelensky's refusal to sign.
They deal with the United States over the development of alien Earth materials in Ukraine, provided he would have an opportunity to simply open up and lash out.
And certainly he wants to sort of clear the ranks in terms of making Zelensky understand that he represents a country that is dependent on the United States.
He cannot sit in the driver's seat, he cannot really dictate his conditions, he has to wait for the term to come around and speak, because Ukraine is entirely dependent on the Western and the United States in terms of military support, in terms of economic support, and And elsewhere, obviously Trump doesn't like when people openly challenge him and certainly challenge him in a very abrupt and confrontative way, the way how Zelensky spoke to him, because Zelensky spoke like that the word spontaneous, but I think he kind of confused roles here thinking that he can speak to anyone he doesn't like.
Yeah, so since you have already talked about this proposed agreement, you give the US access to Ukraine's rarest mineral, I guess on the Trump administration site it has already shown frustration with Zelensky for directing his ministers last week not to sign off to this proposed deal.
Let's talk more about Zelensky's response to Trump.
What do you make of it?
And for example, we have heard US Vice President J .D.
Vans talking about Zelensky's open criticism of Trump is not helping his cause, what is your take?
Look, I think for Zelensky it's really difficult to adjust to the new reality where he cannot simply ask the US president to sign a blank check and then the US president would do like he did with Biden, and even to the point when Biden would apologize on camera to Zelensky that he cannot give him this, he cannot give him that.
So I think Zelensky kind of is caught in to this celebrity special treatment status that he was indulging over the past three years.
I think part of this escalation of rhetoric between Zelensky and Trump is also Zelensky is thinking about his own political future.
And I think he is trying to negotiate some sort of an execute political future, personal future, for himself.
And I think there is also an expectation in Ukraine as well as in Europe that Trump may be gone in three or four years.
All they need to do is with the government term withstand the pressure and maybe hoping that Trump may be impeached in the United States if he will press Zelensky so much because clearly there is a very powerful Ukrainian Software that exists not only in the camp of the democrats, but suddenly there would be lots of pro -ukraine sympathizers in the republican party.
For now, they haven't really rebelled against Trump, but there's already been voices of dissent on the Ukraine issue, so it would also be a matter of understanding whether Trump may go too far in pushing Zelensky and trying to demonize Zelensky, because for the three years, the West was building up his profile as a national hero as the savior of the free world against tyranny and oppression of Russia.
And now Trump is trying to destroy all of that within the period of effectively 48 hours.
So I think Zelensky is thinking that maybe he can outplay this.
He can effectively capitalize on the political capital.
So he managed to build up of about three years.
And I think he's also counting that Europe somehow can come up with an alternative to the U .S.
age, should simply cut off the tab completely.
And whether that's actually a smart strategy, assuming that the combined Europe can satisfy Ukraine requirements, it's a big question because Europe has demonstrated a complete lack of capacity to make Russia's growing military might in terms of manufacturing capacity, in terms of supplying Ukraine with much necessary military equipment, weapons, munitions, etc. So even the point concerning assembly and sufficient intervention course, the discussion that is currently taking place talks about about 30 ,000 military personnel which is nothing given the size of Ukrainian theater war.
And so on the sudden is something that would not detail Russia, and we're talking about effectively a collective effort of over 20 European countries.
If they cannot assemble the fourth laser landscape, wanted them to assemble something between 100 ,000 to 200 ,000.
I think his expectation that Europe can effectively replace the United States, well, it's a bit too optimistic.
So given what you have elaborated regarding the a possible calculation on the minds of the landscape.
How would you comment on the possible the possible impact on Kiev's morale to continue to fight this war with Russia because of the recent dramatic term in a U .S.
policy, even though, like you said, there were there are indeed many domestic opposition to Trump's policy, but still Trump represents Washington represents the U .S.
policy right now? — Look, I, it's a really good question, and I think it would certainly have immense impact, negative impact on the morale of the Ukrainians, including the Ukrainian military, because the Ukrainian military above all recognizes that it's only the United States that can actually pull up its weight and give Ukraine what it needs.
If Trump is effectively turning his back on Ukraine and meant by that, making tendering on its back on Ukraine, and I think that sort of being partially reflected in the remarks of the new U .S.
Secretary of Defense, that will certainly have a very negative impact on the morale.
You know, the whole discussion about Ukraine's real agreement is making the Ukraine's wonder, what are they fighting for, you know.
This is a form of evaporation from Ukraine, because it was almost a naïve expectation that Ukraine's war effort will be funded by the West, and Ukraine would not have to return money, or at least the ones that were not given as part of land lease or a long credit facility like Europeans did, and now all of a sudden they are facing this massive bill and that's before they can actually estimate how much it would cause them to rebuild the campfire.
And not one is talking about who's going to fit that bill because clearly the Russians are not even thinking or, you know, considering any post -war preparations of any kind.
And it was very interesting because within 24 hours of the dispute between Zelensky and Trav, a number of interviews that were done on the streets of Kiev were released, including with English translation.
And the mood of people who were interviewed randomly is overwhelmingly specific.
They all kind of say that, yes, it's a bad deal for Ukraine, but they would rather see the end of hostilities, some sort of suspension of hostilities than endless fighting.
None of the interviews that I have heard, including Ukrainian, were kind of showing great resilience and determination to keep on fighting, and that's a sharp contrast to similar sort of opinion polls that were filmed back in 2022, 2023, or even early 2024.
So clearly there has been a change of mode in the Ukrainian society because of the war fatigue, because people are really tired.
They feel really depressed.
They don't really see any changes in the battlefield them their favor.
They're subjected to constant aerial attacks, aerial bombardment.
It's really stressful.
The kids are not sleeping.
They live – many of them live without electricity for hours, if not days, and they certainly want to get a sense of normality, conditional normality, and I think they're prepared to accept any deal right now, which, once again, also contradicts with what president Zelensky is trying to communicate on behalf of his people.
So the final question before we let you go, Russian president Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday that Moscow was ready to return to the negotiating table but to emphasize that building trust with the United States is essential for any progress.
So what could be the calculation on the Russian sides now?
For 30 seconds. Look, in short, the Russians will not be preoccupied with Ukraine.
They won't return to more or less normal, pragmatic relations with the United States, recognizing them as the superpowers.
So the conversation between the Russians and the Americans have already went beyond Ukraine and will continue to go beyond Ukraine.
So Ukraine will be one of discussion points, rather than the focus of the conversation.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Dr. Aleksey Muravio joining us from Curtin University.
We're listening to The World Today.
I'm Dinh -Honey Beijing.
China has pledged to allow more foreign investment in sectors, including telecommunications, healthcare, and education.
China's Ministry of Commerce and the National Development and Reform Commission have unveiled a 20 -point action plan to stabilize the country's foreign investment in 2025.
Foreign companies will be encouraged to set up investment -oriented subsidiaries here in China and invest in listed Chinese companies.
So joining us now, underlying is Professor Liu Bao -Chen from the University of International Business and Economics.
So thank you very much for joining us today, Professor Liu Bao -Chen.
Why do you think this action plan is targeting sectors like telecom, healthcare, and education as the areas for further opening?
And actually, we know there were already some similar steps or measures announced last year in the telecom or in the healthcare sector.
For example, the establishment of the wholly foreign -owned hospitals is already permitted in several major cities actually?
Yes. When China is now shifting its gear for high -quality development through the deployment of new productive forces with innovation, these identified three sectors they can converge to give a further push for Chinese drive of modernization because these are really crucially important in boosting human capacity via education, in bringing people together and low -cost communication, and then to give a better health condition to improve a stronger labor force, and also to give a sense of entitlement for social stability and harmony.
These areas used to be restricted because China thought our industries were not highly competitive enough.
Therefore, there were some protectionist measures to allow certain space and time for Chinese businesses to grow.
Now, these industries are getting stronger to be able to play at par with the peers from the global investors, so hence we have the incremental opening up to such a stage.
And the other issue is that there is a rising demand in the Chinese domestic market.
For or upper middle class families, they sent more of the kids to study overseas because some of the institutions in other countries can offer what they really want, simply because Chinese institutions are more disciplined and more hierarchical, and therefore with introduction of more of foreign education in pedagogical format, and also in the curriculum and also in the expertise that can really enrich the Chinese educational content and also to provide further push for China to improve its educational system.
And for health care because that's highly needed now we have particularly in the coastal areas and central cities we have so many people who are really lining up for treatment in hospitals.
So this introduction of foreign investment hospitals can really there to mitigate some of the tensions between the hospital treatment versus the patient need.
And the other it also helps actually to attract foreign investment in multiple sectors because the experts in China, they may have insurance, was identified hospitals overseas simply by transfer the insurance and hospital treatment and that makes their life easier.
So this does really help a great deal.
So in terms of geographic locations, how can China direct more foreign investment to its central, western, and northeastern part of provinces, which we know is another state at its goal in this action plan?
Well, this is a very interesting question, because it's supposed to be that the oil investment, both foreign investment in China, or the domestic investment in the coastal region, are supposed to go and pursue low cost in any areas.
Therefore, the Chinese Western area or the central China, northeastern area, they are there to be able to receive the further dispersion of technology and the manufactured businesses.
But the reality is not as ideal.
The current advantage lies in connectivity is already very strong because in terms of roads, airports and railways, the logistic cost is not really a huge consideration in the investment decisions into those regions, much really lies in the local governance.
And so therefore, or to integrate the entire Chinese domestic marketplace with same level clean fields with other regions that's important.
Yes, you can also bargain with local government officials with regard to the conventional privileges like land concessions, like tax rebates, et cetera.
So the key is that how these regions can carve out the right type of business environment, in which law can be backed by, and also the local talent will have to be trained to be able to handle the job that is being required.
So when we talk about encouraging foreign businesses or foreign companies to set up investment -oriented subsidiaries in China and invest in listed Chinese companies, I guess probably some of the very important issues here or it includes their foreign exchange management for example as well as their their cross -border personnel or data flows etc. So how do you think Chinese authorities can can facilitate these these things can provides help on these things.
The easing is very steady but also with caution for the restriction of the cross border capital flow because we identify some of the big areas like the pilot zones Shanghai, Shenzhen and and Beijing and not to mention the Freeport that is being opened for this year in the highland island for the easy convertibility and also easy transferability both in China and with other countries.
And then more of the qualified foreign investors are also being introduced to participate in the Chinese financial marketplace.
So that's something that can encourage the cross -border flow.
And the other is that we further enhance the stock connect and bond connect with foreign peers.
So that can really address some of the concerns of those large capital.
And now, we also now have streamlined the visa policies to have the free visa for foreign visitors into China.
So they can not only deal with the transaction of exchange, but also they can also inspire by the near look that China is going on so that they can consider more seriously of the investment.
So I think what has remained there is how we can really strike a fine balance between the data security and also foreign currency management versus the freer flow of cross border transmission of those currencies.
Last year we saw more foreign invested businesses enterprises getting registered here in China.
But in the meantime, there was also a slump in terms of China's actual use of foreign capital.
What do you make of this phenomenon and the challenges it was pointing to?
And ultimately, do you think some of the traditional or existing strength like China's market size, complete efficient supply chain system, etc., will continue to provide a solid foundation for international businesses to invest in China?
I think it's a paradox.
On one hand, the foreign investors, they have high hope on Chinese marketplace with increasing buying power.
Therefore, they would like to take a seat into China.
Hence, they register more companies within China.
However, on the other hand, And the hold the money, some of them, is that the way to see.
One is that whether Chinese policy is going to be stabilized and get more predictable.
And the other is that they wanted to see that the Chinese RMB can be more stabilized.
There's not much of the changes in the exchange rate.
The other interesting issue is that they invest more into the high -tech area, which may not require a large finance input from the very beginning because the investment will be spread out over a long term.
So these are really the issues that are very enthusiastic, but in the meantime they also remain rather cautious and more rational.
Your points well taken.
Professor Liu Baochen joining us from the University of International Business and Economics.
You are listening to World Today, I'm Dean Huning Beijing, we'll be back after a short break.
You are back with World Today, I'm Dean Huning Beijing.
One in five German voters remain undecided, with only days until the final parliamentary elections.
A yougof poll is also showing that 7 % of the undecided plan to make their final choice on the day of the voting, raising a prospect regarding a last -minute swings that could influence the final result.
German voters will be going to the post on Sunday following the collapse of German Chancellor Olaf Scheldt's coalition government last year.
The Social Democrats, led by Olaf Scheldt, the Chancellor, are facing strong competition from the conservatives, the Greens as well as the right -wing alternative for Germany.
The election will be critical for the EU's biggest economy, influencing such issues and support for Ukraine, economic strategies, as well as migration.
For more on this, my colleague Geun -na earlier spoke with Dr. George Zagopoulos with CIFE, a European research organization.
Professor, the recent poll highlights that 20 % of potential voters are still undecided, with 7 % planning to decide on election day.
What factors do you believe are contributing to this high level of indecision among voters?
Well, to start with, it is important to mention that this significant number of German voters remains undecided and explore the factors behind that.
And I believe, the main reason is that they are not satisfied with the parties and their political agendas.
And that's why they haven't yet made their decision.
So I believe that they will think more about the political agendas of the parties in the next days, and they can reach a decision either to go to the polls or to abstain.
It will be a decision that will be reached at the last moment.
but their general tendency reflects their disactive action with the political agendas of parties.
Building on that, in the recent TV debate, Chancellor Alfred Shaw and Friedrich Meez presented their visions for Germany's future.
So how do you assess their performances?
Do you think this debate will influence the undecided voters?
Well, I would say that, generally speaking, that type of TV debate to not play a very important role in shaping the attitude of voters and of undecided voters because most of the citizens are well aware of the political agendas of the parties and of the personalities of the leaders.
So I would say that the TV debates can possibly play a helpful role but they are not the factor to determine how voters and undecided voters will vote on the of the election.
So more or less, both Chancellor Soltz and the leader of the CEDEVU party, the Christian Democratic party, have a clear policies and their personalities are well known to the voters.
So I would say that the debate itself will not be the one to decide the winner of the Sunday Bundestag's Valed.
We know a central challenge for the next later will be forming a stable coalition, likely the SPD or the Greens.
Given the fragmented political landscape today, how difficult will it be for them to form a government that is both functional and capable of tackling Germany's urgent economic and social issues today?
Well, this is a great question taking into account that the current government collapsed, which is is something spectacular for German politics.
So Germany is a country where that type of political turmoil does not frequently happen, and it happened under the current circumstances.
So the mission of the next winner of the election, that probably will be the Christian Democratic Party, will be to form a government that will be stable.
and practically this means that the viable option will be a grand coalition between the Christian Democratic Party and the Social Democratic Party, in order for Germany to be well -governed in the next four years.
Obviously, a critical question remains up to what extent the Christian Democratic Party will collaborate or not collaborate with the Alternative for Germany party, the right -wing Juan, as there is an ongoing debate concerning the extent to which this alternative for Germany Party can really play a role in domestic politics as it is happening at the local level in Germany.
But I would not opt for such a scenario in the case of debating about the parties that will form the new German government.
I will mainly focus on the possibility for a grand coalition between the Christian democratic party and the social democratic party.
Professor, we know this is an important election, not only for Germany, but also for the European Union and the broader continent, including Ukraine.
Germany's political direction will significantly influence the EU's future.
So how do you anticipate the election outcome will affect Germany's role within the European Union?
Well, it is very important for the European Union to see Germany undertaking a leading role as it was happening in the years of Chancellor Angela Merkel and with the most characteristic examples to note the European debt crisis, the migration crisis, and also Brexit.
This didn't happen in the last four years, I would say, and there is much expectation that the new stable German government will possibly play a role in order for the European Union and for Germany itself to refine their reorientation in the international arena.
I would say, obviously, that a lot depends on decisions to be made in the United States, but still the European Union is an actor of the international system that needs to act autonomously, and with a stable German government, this can possibly happen.
Of course, at the same time, developments in France are to be taken into account, but Germany remains the locomotive of the European economy, and the sustainable German government will be very good news for Europe.
But Professor, the recent Munich Security Conference featured remarks from US officials, including Vice President G .D.
Vance, have raised concerns about the future of transatlantic relations.
How do you anticipate the next German government influencing the EU's strategic autonomy and its relationship relationship with the United States?
Well, I would say that the evolution of American foreign and economic policy is in line with the pre -election agenda of President Donald Trump.
And this is practically what Vice President Vance did in his speech in Munich.
So this is not surprising for the European Union to see that the new American administration does not really value the EU role in the world.
So, having said that, I would say that the European Union needs to make difficult decisions about its future.
These decisions are not only related to Ukraine, they are related also to its economic power in a changing technological world.
And obviously Germany, along with France, are the core where decisions are to be made.
So a stable German government will play a pivotal role in order for the European Union to respond to the challenges and to move away from the paralysis of the last years.
Great. Speaking of challenges, let's turn to Ukraine.
With the US bypassing European allies and directly engaging with Russia over the Ukraine conflict, how do you foresee the Germany's position on this matter, and how will the election can result influencing Germany's support for Ukraine, especially in terms of military aid and diplomatic backing?
Well, to start with, the United States and Russia are the main actors, so it is a very natural thing that they are talking to each other about Ukraine and about other issues as the new Trump administration is really envisaging possibly a modus vivendi with Russia.
So I would say that Germany and the European Union will follow after the elections, probably it will take some time in order for the government to be formed, will adjust to new development.
So, I wouldn't expect that the European Union in the end and Germany will see the Ukraine crisis irrespective of how the agreement between Russia and the United States could look like.
Dr. George Zagopoulos from CIFE, a French -based European research organization talking with my colleague Gu An -na.
Coming up, South Africa is hosting a meeting of G20 foreign ministers minus the United States.
We'll be back. You're listening to World Today, I'm Team Honey Bai Jin.
South Africa is hosting a G20 foreign ministers meeting in the city of Johannesburg, but was now the presence of the United States.
U .S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is skipping the two -day gathering after criticizing South Africa's policies as anti -American, quote -unquote, deepening a diplomatic rift between the two sides.
The top U .S. diplomat has snapped the meeting's agenda, solidarity, equality, and sustainability.
In the meantime, U .S.
Treasury Secretary Scott Benson has also decided to skip a meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bankers in the city of Cape Town next week.
So joining us now underlying is Dr. Zhou Mi, senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
Thank you very much for joining us.
So, why do you think the United States under Trump is now determined to be a bad boy within the G20 framework this time around, at least?
Well, as you mentioned, that's not only about Trump himself, but also about the Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury, and also Secretary of the State did not go to Johannesburg to attend the G -20.
But if you are looking back in the first term of Donald Trump, he attended all the three, I mean, the offline meetings of the G -20 in Osaka, in Hamburg, and also in Argentina, China, and also another one online.
So I think that he was still trying to make some of the presidents of the United States in the G20 because he saw it as a very important platform.
But this time the situation has changed.
I think that there may be also some other issues.
Maybe man is standing, there are two issues.
The first one is that the U .S.
has said that it has some, you know, not agree with South Africa's act of land equations.
It's a new act that's published by the South African government.
So they do not agree with that.
So they decided not to support the G20 held by the South Africa.
And second, maybe it's also important because they do not agree with the ideas that they should stand there together with other main major powers in the world and trying to discuss issues.
They want to be very special.
I mean they have published a lot of new policies to do with the tariff.
It's already a different time.
So do you think South Africa is justified to promote solidarity, equality and sustainability through this gathering of G20 foreign ministers?
And what is Donald Trump and administration's core mentality behind, um, snubbing this very agenda.
Well, we know that G20 is always stick to those principles, like you mentioned, those principles, but that's not just the UNIQL ones.
I think that in such a kind of uncertain world there are a lot of uncertainty.
So the South Africa still trying to stick to the principle of G20 and trying to unite all the major powers in the world to discuss some of the most important issues?
Well, United States is different.
They want to just focus on their priorities.
And I don't think that they agree that the world should be more stable, should not try to give more uncertainty to the world, because every day, almost every day the White House is publishing some new policies trying to change or challenge the international rules.
I don't think these earlier are the same to do with the G20 principle.
I believe the US has a very special mind under in attendance of this G20 summit.
So what do you make of the potential damages to the US reputation, for example, or to the soft power of the United States, the global soft power, and even beyond when the Trump Trump and the administration is attempting to isolate the United States from multilateral platforms like G20 and the spirit regarding multilateralism.
Well, we know that G20 is an important platform.
All the major powers are going there to discuss about the issues of this year.
And if the United States did not attend this conference, I think that they may not be able people to see something on the summit.
I still believe that there are not just the leaders in this G20 meetings.
Many of the US government officials will still go there to attend the meetings, but they do not have as powerful leaders as of these countries.
And if they speak, people may think that what would you like to have?
What would you regard G20 as?
I think that people will believe that United States want to be special, they want to be isolated.
As a sovereign power, I agree with you that sovereign power is very important in such a world when you are trying to ask others to, you know, to take your ideas or opinions, but if you are not so convincing, maybe you cannot just make others believe that when they are going to do that it will be good for them also, and they will not make some commitments also.
Um, so it's, I guess when we talk about the story today, it's very important to note here that a G20 was established after the 2000 and a 2009 global financial crisis.
And if we recall, the United States was exactly the source, the triggering party of that very global disaster at the time.
think about the subprime mortgage crisis in America, which was the trigger.
So with that in mind, if we're talking about a scenario in which the U .S.
is no longer involved in the G20 framework from now on, what kind of risks would that bring if another similar, you know, global scale financial crisis came into being either from the US home soil or elsewhere.
Well, I think that maybe it will be very dangerous because that we will know that it's not all about the financial crisis.
There will always be many other challenges like for the global health related problems or some kind of other virus.
I don't think that's even the country of the United States can handle that alone.
So, when the world is under threat or by some kind of, you know, the unknown factors, the people need to have some confidence.
I think the United response will be very important, like what we have been doing in the global financial crisis after the year of 2008.
Then, the president of United States, Obama, just raised the idea that G20 should be formed, should be up -leveled to the leader levels.
So when we are trying to deal with the situation, I do believe that other countries still think that it is very necessary for us to unite together and to mix some response, but if you cannot do that together, maybe every country is just trying to think another way.
Maybe there is such a 20 minus one, maybe start working for it because that world is changing very quickly.
And it was the development of the technology.
We can handle a lot of issues that we cannot handle before.
So I still believe that the concept of cooperation and the multilateralism is still the main principle of the world And we still trying to cooperate with other countries and the states who want to do that as the same principles with us Mmm Multilateralism versus unilateralism the spirit of free trade versus trade protectionism Let's really stay confident and stay positive that ultimately, the former kind of mentality and spirit will prevail over the latter.
But thank you for joining us.
That was Dr. Zhou Mi.
Senior Research Fellow was the Chinese Academy of International Train and Economic Cooperation.
Coming up, K -NASA officials' departures are casting more uncertainty over U .S.
Moon program. Stay tuned.
China has conducted another major asset reshuffle to overhaul its financial sector.
The Ministry of Finance has transferred all of its controlling mistakes in the group of financial companies to central Hui Jin, a sovereign fund under the State Council.
What prompted the reshuffle, is it just an asset transfer between different pockets of the central government, and to what extent will it help overhaul the country's financial sector?
Find out on this week's chat pledge on your favorite podcast platform and CGTN radio.
You're listening to World Today.
I'm Dean Hani Bai Jin.
NASA is reportedly losing four key senior officials who are close to its flagship moon program.
Jim Free is NASA's Associate Administrator who has been a central voice defending the agency's Artemis Moon Program.
He will retire effectively on this upcoming Saturday.
In the meantime, three key officials with the agency's Marshall Space Flight Center, which is the epicenter of the Moon program, had their retirement announced internally on this past Tuesday.
The leadership shake up is adding uncertainty over NASA's space exploration trajectory as Elon Musk and U .S.
President Donald Trump are pulling up the mission to Mars.
So joining us now on the line is Dr. Zhang Fan associate a professor of astronomy with Beijing Normal University.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Hello. Now of course the bigger context here we are talking about is that the CEO of SpaceX, Elon Musk, is now overseeing a sweeping kind of review of NASA records as a special employee of the Trump administration seeking cuts to staff and a program, etc. Now, actually, we know in his first presidential term, Donald Trump had actually set the moon as NASA's core space exploration target.
So with that in mind, why do you think he and Elon Musk have, in some of the most recent months, touted potential missions to Mars as a possible alternative?
death. Right. So, Elon Musk has always wanted to go to Mars, and now he has the ears of Trump, so Trump is parroting.
So the reason he wants to go to Mars is, I think he mentioned that he thinks human consciousness is a miracle in the universe, and he wants to preserve that.
And the Mars is far away enough.
So if there's a nuclear war on Earth, you know, you'll survive on Mars, human lineage, humanity will survive, while the Moon might be too close.
But I don't think...
in his mind our competitors, it will still need Lunar Program to give him money to develop Starship that will be used to go to Mars later.
But he might want the Lunar Program to go a slightly different direction.
you know the the the senior leaders got fired they have stick with the space launch system which is the old rocket the relic from the space space shadow age really and also gave blue origin contract to compete with SpaceX which is using a more traditional design so this this gives you the feel that this older generation of leadership.
They were look... they were more conservative, they're looking at, you know, older solutions.
Accommodation with masks, new radical, new plans.
So that's one. Another is obviously just cost -cutting, you know, Trump being a big person surviving the assassination attempt.
Probably think he's put in there by divine intervention to solve the government's debt issue and leadership positions.
They've caused a lot of wages and they don't contribute as much as engineers to getting the project off the ground.
So they get chops first.
So by the way, what do you think are some of the key differences or the relations even between missions to the Moon and the missions to Mars?
Funny enough, Mars is actually more similar to the Moon than it is similar to Earth.
it's a planet but it's really small and it doesn't have a magnetic field to protect it from the the sounds harmful radiations this is similar to the moon also it doesn't have much of atmosphere either once again very similar to the moon but being further away going there is a lot more difficult than going to the moon because you know one way is something like half half a year and all this time you're exposed to solar radiation that would really give you cancer.
Yeah so Jeff Bezos who's space company, Blue Origin has a multi -billion dollar contract with NASA to land humans on the moon sent in a media interview in January that the Trump administration should really stay on course with the moon program.
So how much does this perceived support from Jeff Bezos and he's a blue -orange in company matter to the moon program here right so obviously he gets I think it's 3 .4 billion dollars from NASA for the lunar program so he obviously wants the program to to continue but whether it does so really I think depends on whether he and other sort of commercial private companies deliver on the technology promises they made.
So one thing that has been quite clear with the Artemis program is that they're seeing this as commercialization of the moon.
So they're giving large contracts to SpaceX and Blue Origin for the human lending systems.
And they're also sprinkling a whole lot of different small projects for small startup companies to deliver goods to the moon.
For example, in March, a firefly, a small company's a lunar lander would be there.
So really if they had all these companies, at least a subset of them can deliver viable sort of technology to commercialize the moon, then yeah.
Otherwise, I think this program might risk being fizzled out just gradually.
So in China plans are on the way here to build a moon base at the lunar south pole by the year 2035.
Do you see any elements of competition between the US and China regarding the mission to the moon?
And do you think any intention to compete with China strategically speaking might play a role in in terms of determining to what extent the Trump administration might continue to support a NASA moon program?
I think competition will play a little bit of a role, but it's not going to be a very extensive role.
It's a common joke in the scientific space communities that if you want to do something and get funding from the US, you just say that China is doing it and vice versa.
But I don't think it's going to be like what propels a polo project because the US has already been to the moon.
So the extra bragging rights they can get by going there again is very limited and it's the same for China, somebody has already been there.
So it's not about bragging rights.
With the US, they are mostly looking at this as a commercial opportunity and for China, it's really looking at the moon as a research base.
So China is trying to build this international lunar research station by 2035, it will be the first base.
And then after 2035, there will be second phase, it's substantially expanded in scope, so it becomes more like the lowest orbit space station where you carry out just a whole bunch of scientific experiments.
China is looking to do that on the Moon.
I didn't hear any mention of Artemis, so it's not because the U .S.
is doing something that China is doing it.
Your point is well taken.
Dr. Zhang Fan, Associate Professor with Astronomy from Beijing Normal University.
That's all the time for this edition of World Today.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast by searching World Today.
Bye for now.
