Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Finland seeks closer business ties with China through its prime minister's visit.
Beijing's commercial space expo highlights rapid growth in industry.
U.S. defense plan focuses on homeland, limits help to allies.
And Russia, Ukraine and U.S. peace talks conclude without a deal.
Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective.
I'm Ge'anna in Beijing.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today.
Our top story.
Finnish Prime Minister, Petteri Orpo, says his official visit to China is aimed at exploring new business opportunities and boosting Finnish exports to Asian markets.
In a social media post after arriving in Beijing, Orpo described the trip as a key to strengthening economic ties.
He's leading a delegation of senior executives from more than 20 companies spanning sectors including machinery forestry, clean energy and food production.
China says it hopes the visit will help strengthen high-level exchanges, expand people-to-people ties and enhance coordination in multilateral affairs.
So to delve into this, Let's have Dr Cui Hongjian, professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
Professor with the Red Carpet, Honor Guards and Food Diplomatic Protocol.
Finland's prime minister has began his four-day visit to China.
What stands out to you the most about this trip?
Well with it by Finnish prime minister.
We can find that the Chinese side provided very high level of reception.
I think it can showcase the Chinese confidence with its bilateral relations with Finland.
Also, for a long time, the bilateral relations between China and Finland have been a very stable and sustainable, I think example, especially for some other European countries.
Especially in recent years.
As we know, some European countries are trying to change the policy towards China.
But comparing with Finland, I think the Finnish government has been trying to keep this long-term and also even more strategic visions about China.
Of course, I think that on this moment, to look for some opportunity from China and to get some more complementary cooperation with China could be a very, very important task for this visit by the Prime Minister.
As you pointed out, Finland carries several unique identities.
It was one of the first Western countries to recognize China and now is also a new NATO member.
This visit comes with more than 20 business leaders focusing on innovation and green growth.
So do you see Finland positioning itself just as a trip partner or as a kind of programmatic cooperation model inside the European Union?
For the Spanish side.
It has a very, very rich experience to live in between the major players, as it happened in the Cold War period.
So I think now even Finland joined into the NATO, becoming a new member of this group.
But I think there should be still space for Finland to insist its foreign policy and to avoid negative impact of the membership of NATO.
The Finnish demands to its relations with China will be with economic interest in the heart.
So if we look at this delegation accompanied with the prime minister, to look for traditional cooperation in some fields like forest industry and technical electronic and also some other areas,
Indeed, both the countries try to open some new areas for cooperation, including the green transition and also even our innovations.
Uh, finland and some other logical countries always play a very important role to help china in those industry, innovation or some other.
So i think to get a kind of a partnership of innovation could be a very, very important and also key issue for those two countries.
Professor, as you mentioned the new realms the two sides hope to expand.
When it comes to china, finland cooperation which areas really matter the most, and what does finland hope to gain at home from working more closely with china?
If we look at the current trade contacts between two countries yes, there are some traditional cooperation including, just we mentioned, the forest industry.
China imported a lot of forest products from finland every year.
It supports chinese industry for printing some others also, except at the same time.
As we know, finland used to be very good at the electronic and also mobile phone.
Nokia has been so popular in China.
But now I think in this area I mean electronic or some other telecommunication still some potential for both countries to have some further cooperation.
For example, now some IT companies in Finland did a good job.
So I think China also tried to get some closer cooperation with Finland in this area.
But of course, as we know, both China and Finland, we share the common goals to support the green transition.
So I think we can find some more cooperation in green economy and in electricity or some other.
And, of course, I think that for both China and the mainland to keep the stability of the trade growth and also to open the areas for more innovation could be very, very pressing and also will be very, very beneficial for postal science.
Professor, we've seen a steady stream of European leaders visiting China, from Spain to France, to Ireland and then Finland and possibly more to come.
So beyond timing, what's really driving this wave of engagement?
And what does it tell us about where China-Europe relations are heading this year?
Yes, as we witnessed not only by the Finnish prime minister but also by recent space, there has been a high frequency and also high level exchange between China and the European countries.
I think it's just a showcase that even for the past several years, European Union or some other European countries, they try to change their perception about China and then they try to adopt their policy towards China.
But still I think it's very, very big or huge common interest between China and European countries will not be negative by even some politicians or governments of Europe now, including Finland or some other European countries, to deal with this issue of of keeping the economic growth and to promote the standard of the average people still, I mean at a very, very top priority for the policies.
So now most of the European countries.
They are facing challenges from its tariff issues from Washington against the European economic interests.
So, besides the United States, besides some other markets, undoubtedly the Chinese market could be a very, very important and also critical market for all of the European countries.
Another, I think very, very key issue is once there are some negative tendencies for this change between European countries and the United States.
So, besides the economic interests, to get some more balancing engagement with major players, especially now with China, I think also in the heart of the consideration for more and more emerging countries.
Professor, some observers say countries like Finland are moving closer to China, not just for cooperation but also to push back, at least indirectly, against the United States.
Do you agree with this?
And as cracks widen in the US-Europe alliance.
What does this choice tell us about how Europe is rethinking its autonomy and diplomacy?
To some degree, it's right to view that now, more and more European countries they have to rethink about the relations with the United States.
Certainly recent two years, the United States played a more negative role to destroy interests of Europe, not only in the economic and trade areas and now recently, geopolitical area.
So yes, some more and more European countries.
They have to look for some more reliable partners besides the United States.
And even they try to do something more to avoid or reduce the possible damage from their allies.
I mean the United States, including the tariff issue and also geopolitical issue.
But of course from China's perspective.
China always supports the strategic autonomy of the European countries.
So hopefully once Europe countries to find that some more their own identity and their own interests, not just from so-called common interests shared with the United States.
I think it could be.
I think there will be some more space or even more benefits for European countries to get from this so-called upcoming multipolar world.
Thanks, Professor, for those insightful analysis.
That was Dr Cui Hongjian, Professor with Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
This is World Today.
Stay with us.
Welcome.
I am Chu Chu Zhang, Deputy Director at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University.
On the World Today program.
We will dive beyond the headlines to uncover the stories, trends and impacts that connect states across the globe.
Join me on World Today.
Welcome back to Road Today.
China's commercial space sector is taking off as a new engine of growth.
Once dominated by state-led programs, the sector is now undergoing rapid commercialization.
Private companies are expanding into new areas such as satellites, launch vehicles and space services, reshaping the industry scale, speed and structure.
With more than 600 active companies Following launch costs and expanding satellite applications, commercial space is moving closer to real-world demand.
The market has grown from just 38 billion yuan in 2015 to more than 25 trillion yuan today, with annual growth exceeding 20.
At the 2026 International Commercial Space Exhibition in Beijing.
That transformation is on full display.
So with more.
My colleague Zhang Yang spoke with Qu Qiang, a professor at Mingzhu University of China.
So thank you very much for joining us, Professor Qu Qiang.
China's commercial space sector is growing rapidly, supported by strong investment and over 600 active companies in this area.
So what do you think is driving this expansion and what do you see as the key opportunities on the horizon?
Well, I think there are several factors pulling together to cause this kind of new dynamics in the aerospace and aviation.
I think number one is the policy.
Ever since, actually 12 years ago 2015, actually we in the government have been published as the Civilian Aerospace and Infrastructure Planning.
This document actually, for the first time, allowed the capital from the private sectors to enter the aerospace and aviation sectors, which means this kind of a barrier has been torn down.
And also last year, I think.
In the government work report they've been very clearly reiterated that the commercial aviation and aerospace industries will be the new gross engine.
So, from Beijing to Shanghai, from Guangzhou to Shenzhen and also from Sichuan to Gansu, lots of you know mother fund actually has been entering this sector, providing all kinds of the favorable conditions and taxation rebate for you know this industry to grow.
So currently we've been looking at more than 20 billion yuan of the PE fund has been entering in here and many companies actually has been growing really, really large.
Six of them actually has been going on the IPO procedure.
So I think this kind of the business loop has already been finished.
And I think before, besides the policy and the same technology is also very important.
For example, like the liquid oxygen and methane recoverable rocket has already been very mature.
And also 3D printing created engine and also the payload versus satellite design.
And all that has been dropping all this kind of the launching cost from China.
$10,000 per kilogram of the weight to now $3,000.
And also the research and the development period of time has been reduced by half.
So this kind of a large bulk but also low cost kind of the development cycle and the production cycle has been achieved and also I think there are more of the applications has already been in the positions as well and we've been seeing this low orbit satellite internet, low attitude economy has been bonding together and also we have been using the drone plus satellites guiding, remote sensing and also the inspection and the logistic.
You know, All that kind of application has already been there.
So aerospace or rocket launching is not just a scientific purpose you know activities but a very much matured, business oriented activity and can help us to generate lots of profit while lower the cost.
And there are at least 600 active commercial space companies here in China.
So which technological breakthroughs stand out as potential game changers for China's commercial players?
And what can they really do in this area?
Well, I think there are already many successful tryouts.
I think the problem is not which is going to be the successful model.
I think the successful model has already been there, has already been testified by the commercial world.
But the problem is that, among the 600 companies, who is going to be the winner, to have the best technology in this area and the lowest cost in this area?
For example, in the A recoverable rocket.
For example, in the Zhuquan No.
3, we have already got the 10 kilometers vertical launching experiment.
And also this year, 2026, we're probably going to see this first flight.
So this kind of recoverable liquid oxygen and methane rocket is actually the mainstream of the whole international aerospace industry.
Well, they can lower actually the every kilograms launching cost to under $3,000.
And also by the wildest dream of the Elon Musk.
Actually, this cost is going to be eventually lower to 100 per kilogram.
And SpaceX is marching towards that goal.
And I think in China, we also have many companies are using this technology.
But the problem is that can we polish this technology to the best or top-notch level, as Elon Musk, as SpaceX?
And secondly, this is the one rocket, many stars, and also the ocean pad launching.
For example, the Changzheng, the Long March, number 11 and also Jell-O, number 3 they have already achieved that one rocket and the 9 to 12 stars.
You know, many satellites, just when one package can be delivered with one rocket into the different level of the orbit and that will can actually lower the cost of the launching by another 20.
And also it's very easy to help us to build this kind of the satellite constellation you know, to build this low orbit internet and also this new design, this integrated design for the satellite is also in the shaping like the payload versus satellite, so which means you're not launching a lot of extra annex but only launch the payload itself, so you don't need to have lots of other costs, so the satellite will be much lighter and also the cost will be much lower.
So this is also going to be very, very important.
So you see, many business model has already been there in the use, making money.
But the problem is that can we make it faster, higher and, you know, more efficient and cost lower?
And many people see space as still far away.
So where are the commercial space technologies already touching daily lives here in China?
Well, actually, space technology actually has already been into every corner in our life.
For example, like the constellation of the satellites and the internet, right?
Everybody knows Starlink.
Basically, you do not need the base tower anymore.
You can have all kinds of low-orbit network of the satellites to fly over the surface, the spatial surface of the Earth.
So you can create the internet without being interrupted by all the mountains buildings, and it's so easy to use.
In China, we have this kind of technology as well, and we've been doing so as well.
For example, right now in the coastal regions, like in my hometown Shandong, and they've been using all this kind of the internet from the satellite actually to monitor all the ships and all the vessels on the ocean, so basically all the kind of the crew members if they are fishing in the coastal regions, like 30 kilometers off the code, and you can still have, you know, your internet links, you can scroll the tick tock, you can have the little red note and you know that the actually the every month.
You only can pay very low fees to enjoy this on ocean internet through the satellites.
And secondly, it's about remote sensing and ai Fire watch.
Right now, you see, in China we have many forests, as China has become the number one vegetation country in the whole world.
Many desert has become, you know, forest right now, but on the other hand, I think the fire risk has also been happening.
So how can we identify, you know, the ignition point through the vast and vast vast, large area of the forest know, so that we can deliver the fire extinguishing services in there, satellite actually has become the most important technology.
So through the satellite and remote sensing and with the ai's reading of the pictures, actually we can find out where has been starting a fire, you know, in just five minutes and which can help us to save people's life and also lots of the cost.
And meanwhile the inspection on the grid and the power cables is actually also very, very matured in China.
No matter in wind, in rain or in the hazard, you know, in the really big snows, we can use these kind of the drones guided by the satellite actually To inspect and repair all these kinds of cables And they can spit fire, they can spit snow extinguishers So that they can keep all the power lines safe.
And that has become a really great business model, Not only in China right now.
It has been exported to many other countries And China's commercial space sector has surpassed 25 trillion yuan in output value, at an annual growth rate of 20 in the past few years.
So, Professor Xu, do you believe commercial space can become a pillar industry comparable to new energy vehicles or artificial intelligence?
Well, absolutely.
Currently, I think, the commercial space industry actually worth about 25 trillion yuan, and every year they've been growing like 20.
So basically, I think the size has been equaling to the EV industries in the 2020, which is the outburst year of the EV industry in China and which can be the pillar of our future economy.
My answer is definitely yes.
This is a very, very different industry in the future, because if you want to have a better power generation well, it basically will depend on how can you use the sunlight more efficiently.
Let me tell you so based on the surface ground of the earth, with all the kind of interruption, the mountains and buildings, and days and lights you know the switching of the days and lights the best place to generate the solar power is in the orbital space, which is in the, So there's no interruptions, no obstacles.
You basically can use sunlight 24-7.
So this is the ultimate dream for the solar power.
And secondly is about AI.
You see, the AI's biggest problem is about how we can exhaust all the heat from the AI calculation, and they use the cheapest of power.
So we'd be using the water, we'd be using all kinds of chemicals to lower the temperature of the chips, but now the best environment is actually in the orbital space.
So you can launch your computing power.
You can launch your chips into the space and generate AI, train your model in there.
It's going to be really cheap, really clean, and really low cost.
So just by imagination you will see this is going to be absolutely not only the pillar of our economy, it probably is going to be the pillar of our human civilization in the future.
That was Professor Qu Qiang from Mingzhu University of China, speaking with my colleague Zhao Yang.
This is Road Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
You've been listening to Road Today with Mika Anna in Beijing.
The Pentagon has released an unclassified version of its 2026 National Defense Strategy, placing the defense of the US homeland and American interests across the Western Hemisphere at the top of its military priorities.
The document emphasizes greater burden-sharing with allies and a stronger US defense industrial base.
It also labels Greenland as a key terrain, pledging to ensure US military and commercial access alongside the Panama Canal and what it calls the Gulf of America.
The strategy also signals reduced US military support overseas, urging allies, especially in Europe, to take primary responsibility for regional security, including Ukraine.
So to delve into this, joining us on the line is Einar Tengen, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation, a Canadian think tank.
Thanks for joining us, Einar.
Pleasure, Anna.
This strategy makes it very clear America comes first, the Western Hemisphere comes first and allies should expect less support.
What does this say about how the U.S. now sees itself and also its place in the world?
Well, it's a very, very sharp difference between the 2022 plan.
And that's what people are paying a lot of attention to.
As you pointed out, it's about America first taking securing quote the hemisphere, and then everyone else, whatever.
You know, it's kind of saying to Europe, you're on your own.
You figured out spend more money.
The same thing going in Asia.
What is really surprising is this kind of inference that South Korea should be looking to handle its own business with North Korea, which went for a nuclear option.
This is something that is not welcome in Southeast Asia, but the Trump administration is signaling that they don't care.
And this perhaps might be a pressure point that they're putting there.
But overall It's an abandonment of the rest of the world and saying that we're going to control what we control.
We're not the global hegemon anymore, but we are going to be a regional hegemon.
I know when the Pentagon talks about Greenland as key terrain and hints at decisive action over the Panama Canal.
Are we seeing an upgraded version of the Monroe Doctrine?
And how do you assess these statements that are strong and do not respect the sovereignty of others?
Okay, so I mean, this is quite different from Monroe, and this is everyone calling it the Donrow doctrine.
And the reason is when this was passed and when President Monroe mentioned it, it was like 26 in the State of the Union messages that was put out.
It was basically a throwaway line.
It could not be enforced at that time.
The US was not in a position to do anything.
They were just making a declaration.
Later on, it became a key part of American policy, especially towards South America.
There had never been any kind of idea that Canada would be included in the Monroe Doctrine.
It was only South America.
So at this point, it is quite different.
There, it was about fending off imperial powers coming in to South America.
In particular, the Dunrow Doctrine says that The only imperial power that can interfere in the whole hemisphere is the United States and that somehow it has the right to do that.
Obviously, this is a complete repudiation of the entire apparatus that was developed after World War II to prevent exactly these such actions.
About Americans' European allies, when for years Europe has relied heavily on US security guarantees.
Now Washington says Europe must take the lead on its own defense and also on Ukraine.
Does this amount to a form of strategic abandonment, as a lot of European experts are talking about today?
Well, it is.
I mean, you know, the special relationship, the transatlantic alliance NATO, all of that has been thrown out the window.
And basically, Donald Trump says you're on your own.
I don't care.
But remember, there's two ways of looking at this.
One is that, you know, this is forever.
The U.S. is not reliable.
And I think there's going to be a very strong push in that direction, because Donald Trump was elected twice with, you know, a hiatus in between.
They can't say that he is a mistake and that other populists like him representing these views might be pushed into office in the future.
The second is, you know, some of these countries still hold on to this hope that somehow it's just Trump, that he's not a symptom of a larger problem, that he is the problem, in which case they think well, we won't do much.
We'll pay lip service to this.
And after three years we hope that somebody more sane reasonable, who respects the relationship will come in and right the ship and everything will be wonderful.
I don't think that increasingly, day by day, that position is losing credence by many people because they just say no, these are the new bookends and we have to deal with them.
I know Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the old world order is not coming back and urged fellow middle powers to come together.
If this US new model becomes a long-term policy, How might you reshape NATO and a US alliance in Asia and also in Europe?
Could it accelerate moves toward a strategic autonomy worldwide?
Well, it's forcing strategic autonomy.
You have to prepare for that.
You might hope that things change a little bit in three years, but you cannot rely on that.
These are countries, they have to look long term.
They can't put all their hopes in one breadbasket name, the United States, given how arbitrary it has been, how unreliable.
So yes, you're going to see more move towards us, towards autonomy.
People quote de-risking themselves from the United States, both politically, economically and militarily.
Irony there being, it was the United States that was running around, especially under the Biden administration, saying that You have to de-risk from China for exactly those reasons.
Speaking of that, the previous versions of the strategy explicitly named China as the top defense priority.
But now Washington says it wants to deal with China through strength, not confrontation.
What's your take on this?
Is this a real change in policy or just a change in tone?
While containment and pressure continues against China, continue behind these things.
I think the latter.
You know, Trump is trying to signal that he's doing a unilateral Yalta, in the sense that he's going to make it.
You know.
Say to Russia and China OK, you can have your playground and I'll have mine.
You know, Russia is not interested in that.
What they're interested in is security, having a long term security architecture.
And that's going to have to be sorted out with Europe.
And apparently the United States is not going to participate.
China is really only interested in making sure that its territory, the one China is, in fact remains one China.
You haven't heard Trump say well, we'll withdraw from Taiwan or we'll take our bases out of Japan and South Korea and start moving our 400 bases that we have surrounding China and abandoning them and bringing them back to the US.
That, I think, would be a very, very different kind of signal, one that seems much more true, but it still doesn't change the basic ideas that Russia and China have, and that this is a multipolar world.
You know, can you imagine what they're saying in Riyadh?
Places in Africa, South America right now.
Trump's trying to push this three-cornered game.
But the fact is those days have gone.
China and Russia are not interested in dividing the world.
They're interested in having peace in it.
It's the US who is taking on these kind of extraterritorial adventures where they think they can just go in and grab things because they want to.
Mm-hmm.
Thanks, Einar, for those insightful analysis.
That was Einar Tengen, Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, a Canadian think tank.
Russia and Ukraine have concluded talks with the United States in Abu Dhabi without reaching a deal.
A UAE government spokesperson noted there was rare face-to-face engagement between the two sides, with a generally positive atmosphere.
But territorial concessions in eastern Donbass remain a key sticking point.
The meeting is the first trilateral talks since the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis in February 2022.
So for more on this, let's bring in Kamal Makili-Aliyev, Associate Professor at the School of Global Studies at the University of Gothenburg.
Thanks for joining us, Professor.
Thanks for having me again.
Professor, people say these talks opened a diplomatic window, but in the end there was no joint statement and no real agreement.
In your view, does dialogue of this kind constitute a meaningful outcome in itself?
I think it does, because the fact that Ukraine, Russia and the US, they sat down together in this rare trilateral format, it's in itself significant after the years of stalled diplomacy.
I think leaders describe the session as constructive and open to continued discussions.
And US security guarantees document reportedly is now, whatever that means, 100 percent trading quote unquote.
And it's ready to be signed.
So awaiting scheduling and ratification from both Kiev and Washington legislatures, that's very much a step forward.
And I think in diplomacy, such sustained engagements, they really matter.
It shows willingness to remain at the table rather than walking away.
Professor, territory is still described as the toughest issue between the two sides.
So in the closed door talks, were they actually trying to find some middle ground, or were they just restating their positions and filling out each other's red lines?
I think what emerged publicly suggests a mix of both.
According to Ukrainian statements, many problematic issues were discussed and their number reduced.
But territorial differences remain the core sticking point.
Russia reiterated its demand for that Ukraine would cede control of Donbas, this very important part in eastern Ukraine, in any type of deal and position the Kyiv still firmly rejects.
But behind the scenes, US mediators are also pushing for a compromise framework, you know, including security guarantees, parameters for ending the war, for example all discussed there.
And there are also reports that elements like delimiterized zones or ceasefire monitoring mechanisms are also on the table and they're being discussed.
At the same time, Moscow's position on territory has not softened and Kyiv continues to insist on territorial integrity.
So this pattern resembles testing bottom lines with some deliberately ambiguous language rather than fully fledged, compromised foreigners that would be acceptable to both parties at this stage.
Professor.
Beyond territory, issues like Ukraine's security guarantees and sanctions on Russia seem just as hard to crack right.
Is there any chance this could be separated and tackled one by one in the near future negotiations?
Yes, I agree if security guarantees and sanctions are lifted.
They're also major hurdles, but I think they could be decoupled conceptually from territorial settlement.
I mean security guarantees that are being finalized for signing up to Abu Dhabi.
They're seen more as a separate pillar that can move forward even without resolving territorial issues.
This relates to how Ukraine is, for example, protected after any kind of peace agreement, which is a top priority for Ukraine.
At the same time, sanctions on Russia.
They're also deeply tied to the behavior in Ukraine and elsewhere.
So lifting them entirely before a comprehensive deal is highly unlikely.
But I think partial sanctions relief could be calibrated as a part of the confidence building measures, for example, and tied to very specific verification steps rather than the territory per se.
So, oh, no, in the step-by-step approach, these issues can be decoupled.
Then how do you view this meeting from Russia's perspective?
Because Russia agreed to join these talks.
Do you see that as a real shift in strategy or more of a tactical move aimed at signaling openness and shifting responsibility for the stalemate onto Ukraine or Europe?
Well, you know, the most evidence suggests it's primarily tactical rather than a change in strategic goals.
Moscow publicly calls the talks constructive, but at the same time it continues to hold its long-standing line that territory, especially Donbass, must be part of any peace deal.
So Russian diplomacy often uses talks to signal openness, for example, and to shift the responsibility for stalemate onto Ukraine and its Western backers.
That's also true.
Their repeated insistence on territorial demands, I think, indicates Not fundamental change in objectives, but it's a willingness to engage in the mediated formats that can buy time.
At the same time, maybe soften Western resolve and open up for future bargaining chips.
For Ukraine, the fighting is still intense on the ground.
Is joining talks like this driven more by domestic politics or by pressure from major allies?
And the U.S. talks about stepping back and pushing Europe to do more.
How much pressure will that put on Ukraine?
And will it eventually balance its promise of no territorial concessions with the reality that negotiations require compromise?
Well, I think you have both in the mix and you're very accurately identified.
From domestic politics view, Kyiv must show that it's exhausting all diplomatic avenues to end the devastating war, while at the same time trying to maintain public credibility by refusing territorial concessions.
It's a very difficult game.
Supporting dialogue, even without agreement, signals responsibility and seriousness to Ukrainian citizens.
That's what they're trying to achieve.
At the same time, you do have pressure from allies.
The US and some European partners have publicly urged continued negotiations and the emerging security guarantees framework.
It also demonstrates that Washington and Europe really want Kyiv to remain engaged in the diplomacy rather than retreat from it entirely.
So I think balancing this entails, first of all, keeping core red lines like territorial integrity intact, publicly for Kyiv.
While at the same time, they want to show willingness to discuss the things like sequencing implementation mechanism, confidence building, measures that don't have prejudged outcomes.
So that kind of calibrated flexibility, I think it can help Kiev preserve some political support while meeting expectations from allies.
It's a very delicate balance.
Indeed.
Then going forward.
What matters more, who gains the upper hand on the battlefield or what happens at the negotiating table?
Does this meeting signal a beginning of like a new phase in the Ukraine crisis?
Oh, I think the answer is again both, you know, because it's fighting while talking.
That's the reality right now.
I think the talks, they occurred during the intense Russian strikes on Ukraine continued.
You know, and that's illustrating that, the battlefield dynamics, they still shape the leverage and urgency in the talks.
That's for sure.
Russia's sustained pressure complicates negotiations and often hardens positions.
So that's also another thing to think about.
Each side uses combat outcomes to inform bargaining stances at the table.
I think however, that trilateral talks that we've seen the emergence of nearly finalized security guarantee agreement.
They show that negotiations are gaining more structure.
And that progress on security frameworks, it can actually narrow a gap between war and peace talks.
I think two points are very important.
If battlefield shift change the calculus, they'll reverberate at the negotiations table, that's for sure.
And if talks on security guarantees this is fire monitoring, you know sequences, all the details that shape post-war architecture.
If they go out without immediate territorial settlement, then we can have advancement in the talks.
So we're now in this hybrid phase, and it remains to be seen how it plays out.
Thanks, Professor, for those valuable insights.
That was Kamal Makilev, Associate Professor at the School of Global Studies at the University of Gothenburg.
Coming up.
French President Emmanuel Macron calls for a ban on social media for children under 15 before the start of the next school year in September.
This is Rail Today.
Stay tuned.
Hello, I am Dr Digby James Ren, a political analyst and international relations scholar specializing in China-area studies.
World Today offers unmatched in-depth perspectives on China's politics economics business, technology and societies.
World Today's team of reporters and contributors provides valuable information from all of the world's major economies.
I hope you can join me on World Today for the very best insights and news from China, on China, and help to build a better understanding of China's role in the world today.
You've been listening to Road Today.
France is moving to ban social media for children under 15.
The government tightens controls on young people's online activities.
President, Emmanuel Macron has ordered an accelerated process to pass the bill before the start of the next school year in September, warning that social media platforms are harming children's mental and emotional development.
The move follows similar discussions in Britain, where the government says it's considering comparable restrictions.
Last month, Australia became the first country in the world to introduce a nationwide social media ban for teenagers under 16.
For more on this.
My colleague Sun Ruixin spoke with Mike Basting, senior lecturer at the University of Southampton.
Mike, as an academic, what is your greatest concern regarding children or teenagers' use of social media?
Well, I think, first of all, for most people, it's the volume of use.
It's become such an almost like their best friend.
It's certainly, I think we can use the word, addictive.
The number of hours per day is excessive that they're often not seen without it or without using it.
So that's one of the concerns most definitely the addictive nature, but also the harmful content that can often be found on there.
And very, very difficult to actually block that from teenagers.
So I think the volume and the content both are very, very worrying.
For academics at University Life, it's a concern as well to wonder what they're doing.
We can sort of stop them using it during lectures and seminars.
But even that's not easy.
Yeah.
But when we talk about the impact of social media, is it just really about the time spent or something deeper about the way these platforms work?
I think it's deeper.
I think the platforms are very dominant.
I'm not going to give them any more publicity.
And certain people are very dominant, very well known.
Again, I'm not going to give them any more publicity.
But I think it's the fact that it's very poorly regulated.
I mean, that really is a fact.
What can go on there, and often does go on there, is not suitable, to say the least, for younger teenagers children, probably even adults as well.
So I think it really is the content and the fact that it's It's not policed.
It's not regulated.
It's not like the traditional media where things can be vetted and unsuitable content blocked.
So I think it really is the content and also the destructive nature it has on the cognitive development of these younger minds and their ability to think and think critically and independently and not almost be taken into a different world where they don't think for themselves.
So the harmful content, I think, is the key concern.
As you can see, the French government made a lot of news recently.
The UK government are piloting some sort of legislation, I think, going through the House of Lords now to really block or prevent usage.
We'll see how that progresses.
As far as UK schools are concerned, they've taken strict measures.
So I know for a fact my children are not allowed to use their phones.
I think during break time they can access their phones and check their messages.
I know for a fact a local uk school is now going to actually ban social uh mobile phones, uh during school time.
So children will not even these.
These include children up to the age of 18 will not be allowed to actually take a mobile phone physically on the school site during school time.
So i think that it's probably a good thing, but i think they need to go further And I think governments across the intergovernment cooperation is necessary to go further and faster and really unfortunately, place some sort of ban on the usage of these mobile phones, certainly during school time.
Dan, like you said, the UK government is currently trying to take some measures.
And it has been reported by BBC that the House of Lords has backed a move to ban under-16s in the UK from social media platforms.
So, given this and the French and, let's say, Australian examples, why is implementing such a band so complex in practice?
Well, I think it's difficult.
There are always loopholes.
There are always technical sort of shortcuts and ways around this.
So does this ban actually mean a ban, or can certainly teenage children who are very tech savvy actually get around this?
How do you actually implement this?
I think that's one major obstacle, perhaps the major obstacle, and also governments working together intergovernment, cooperation and enforcement.
But also these companies again, I'm not going to even run more publicity are so powerful and so dominant that they carry a lot of weight when it comes to the international economy and local economies as well.
I think governments are a little bit timid in trying to actually confront them and really oppose their continued development and the fact that they perhaps do contribute to the local, national and even international economies that are economic reasons.
But I think government needs to be tougher and look at really smarter technological advances to make sure a ban the block really is in effect.
That
It's very difficult to achieve that.
But as a professor, how do you draw the line between what should be restricted and what should remain accessible?
Well, certainly harmful content for teenagers and children, something that's totally adult.
I think people know what I mean.
There should be completely blocked.
And I think there are clear guidelines when it comes to the traditional media and where those lines are drawn.
So I think that can be implemented most definitely.
And also, I think, the use of the addictive nature, so things like games that really take over perhaps a younger person's mind and then they really become obsessed with this.
So I think a combination of those things, but certainly the adult content needs and could be removed and blocked as it is in other traditional forms of media.
And where that's too difficult to do, I think government need to make a much stronger effort and implementation and enforcement there.
Then Mike, if we move on to French President Macron's words.
He framed this issue as protecting children from so-called American platforms and so-called Chinese algorithms.
This is legislation, fundamentally just a child protection measure, or perhaps even, let's say, a strategic move in the broader geopolitical context for digital sovereignty and regulatory influence.
I think it's a bit of both and obviously governments like the french government do feel perhaps sort of in a in a little bit of a difficult situation that they don't have complete control because these again, these companies and these people are so dominant globally and it's very difficult to implement something within your boundaries when you're you're looking at the sort of cyber space it doesn't have, doesn't respect uh, geographic boundaries.
So i think it's it's definitely a move there.
I think it's the start of wider government actions.
I think that the French perhaps have taken the lead.
Like you say, the Australians have done a fair bit in this area as well.
And the House of Lords are looking at something in the UK as well.
So I think more governments will work together and do more.
But I think it is about individual governments and sovereignty as well and more control.
He's used very, very powerful language, but I think that that's needed.
I think it really is a real danger.
Like I said earlier, it's not just the the harmful content that is the most concerned, but it's also the fact that it's really a very passive experience where children and teenagers are not really developing that critical thinking and independent thought, being presented with information rather than being sort of almost taken we can use the word brainwashed and really becoming sort of zombie-like mindset.
So I think Macron's lead is very, very provocative, but very necessary.
Then, if we look forward, what do you think the most significant challenges will be in integrating technology like AI into education, while keeping the focus on student well-being and development?
I think it's enforcement.
It's finding that technological breakthrough that really does make it virtually impossible for people to get around it.
As we know, you can often fight indirect ways of getting around any blockage or usage.
I think it's finding the technology and governments working together and the companies involved behind these brands facing up to the fact that their expansion has to be limited.
So I think that's the key challenge.
But it's also now.
We've reached a situation where it's quite difficult for teenagers to actually adapt and change their lifestyles.
So I think we need to work on that as well, and a process of education from the early years to make it clear that you don't need a mobile phone.
You don't need to spend, as Macron says, children spending two to five hours a day.
I suspect it's more than that on their mobile phones.
That is not necessary for a healthy lifestyle.
So it's a changing lifestyle, values and aspirations when it comes to really having a good younger life.
It doesn't need to be on the mobile phone.
So I think that's very, very important as well.
That was Mike Basting, senior lecturer at the University of Southampton, speaking with Sun Rui Xin.
That's all the time for this edition of Word Today.
I'm Ge'anna in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
