Security advisor, Jake Sullivan talking about a range of geopolitical challenges. Jake sullivan testified about a range of International Challenges in the war in ukraine to relations with china. Part of the aspen Security Firm in colorado. He highlighted u. S. Weapon supplies and training pilots on f16 fighter jets. This is about 45 minutes. Thank you. Thank you for the most spectacular security government i have been to. One name after another, just like hammer blows. Ending with you, jake. The cherry on the cake. I like to think. Bill burns, one of the nicknames big names we had here yesterday. He discussed the failed coup attempt. Putins response to this, not acting on that implied word, trader. He said the emperor has no clothes or if the emperor does have clothes, he is taking a long time to get dressed. I think that is a very memorable way of putting it. Of course, it was about the exposed fragility of putin. My question to you is how can we exist assist this fragility along . Is that a goal . What happened inside russia is for the elements of Russian Society and russian politics to work out. It is not for us to sit around and plot how to change the regime in moscow. We made clear that is not where our efforts lie. Our efforts lie in supporting ukraine so they can be as successful on the battlefield as possible. Success for ukraine on the battlefield reverberates inside russia. Why did he do what he did . It was because he was so unhappy with the course of the war effort in ukraine. If putin had been succeeding in ukraine, you would not have seen perversion seen him doing that. We need to provide tools for ukraine for it to continue to be successful as a joke to element every element of Russian Society that prudent adventure in ukraine was a misadventure putins adventure in ukraine was a misadventure. That has to be the prime directive for us to focus on. Talking about the adventure in ukraine. One of the nastiest aspects has been the wagner group. Is it out of play . Is it out of commission . To be clear, i dont think anybody knows whether wagner, the Russian Ministry of defense, any particular commander, this is all so unsettled. What happened with the mutiny have yet to play out. We will see it play out over the next weeks and months. This is what is preoccupying put an end to around him. They are actively trying to work through all of that. I cannot give you a clear answer about whether the future of wagner lies he or there. Other elements are looking heavily to go further afield. The less most of wagner the loss of wagner persist. Some of the modest progress that russia made during his last counteroffensive is on the board. That will come at some cost to russia overall. It is hard to predict next month, let alone a few months down the road as to whether in fact what we see today which is wagner out of commission from the point of view of ukraine remains the case. You heard prigozhin say they are not engaged in ukraine right now but also mused about whether they may be engaged in ukraine in the future. I dont think he knows, i dont think putin knows so we need to plan for any contingency. There has been talk at this conference about the slow progress of this counteroffensive. The president of ukraine was on the screen. They both reiterated that we need f16s. There is some controversy about whether they actually need it but they are the ones on the ground and they are the ones asking for these important pieces of military equipment that theres a will help them finish the job. What do you say to them when they reiterate this demand . On f16s, i said on cnn that we are moving rapidly to try to help ukraine get the ability to operate those f16s and put them to use. That means working with our allies to train Ukrainian Pilots and then also how to sustain and actually service and f16 squadron were multiple squadrons in a fight. That work is underway and we are going to push as fast as possible to be able to deliver that capability ukraine. To ukraine. I would point out the following, russia has 800 or 900 fourth or fifth Generation Fighters and have not played a significant role in russias counteroffensive or russias defensive effort in the south and east. That is because air defense is such a significant element to both sides capabilities that ukraine can hold russian fourth and fifth Generation Fighters at risk and russia can hold them as well. The view of our military commanders is the notion of f16s would play a decisive role in this counteroffensive given that fundamental reality which is played out in the battlefield over the course of the past year , they have a different view of what you have heard from some ukrainian voices. I would say some of those fighter jets are important for the longterm defensive adherent defensive deterrent capabilities of ukraine. We are not just building for the counteroffensive today but for the force of ukraine tomorrow. That is what a significant amount of this work is about with respect to attacking, the british and french have provided longrange strike capability that is integrated into the ukrainian fight. It is good to see that they have an additional capability they are using in the context of this counteroffensive and have over the course of many weeks and months to go with all the things the United States has provided which is more than the rest of the world combined. Whether or not we ultimately given attack give attack weapons is for the president to discuss with zelensky. Let me press you on that. If you go with ukrainian narrative, we were more cautious earlier in the war about what we gave them. Whoever was drawing that redline for putin is running out of red ink because the redline keeps retreating. It is perfectly reasonable for them to push for something seeing as how you push the redline you push putins redline back gradually. Isnt the prigozhin attempt at mutiny and putins inability to be the apostle of payback doesnt that cause us to further reappraise where putins red lines are . We have to be a learning organism. We do something more, russia response, we respond. Russia responds, we respond. If you think about the course of this conflict so far, what we have tried to do is provide ukraine with the capabilities it needs for the beginning phase of war. In the early phase of the work, the defensive he was about antitank and antiair. That is what stopped the advance in its tracks. The second phase of the war was about artillery, opacity to be able to halt to the russian advance in the donbas. In this stage of the work, it is a need for mobility, you need tax, combined arms operations, money clearing equipment, breaching equipment. We have given that to the ukrainians in droves. From our perspective, we have not just looked at the question of what capability to provide ukraine. We have looked at what is necessary for a given part of the conflict, how you train and equip the iranians to be able to execute the conflict as effectively as possible. Finally, i would just make the point that there are two caricatures that i think are just wrong. One caricature is that the Biden Administration is sitting around , unwilling to provide things because we are worried about the russians. I think that is a lie by the sheer breadth of things we have provided. We will continue to take risks and be prepared to take risks to provide support to ukraine. On the other hand, there is a caricature that says dont worry at all, do not even ask the question about what russia might do because that is just weakness. Why would you even consider that . It is responsible for every member of nato and for the United States to think about the russian reaction when we choose to do something because that matters for our security and it matters for global security. Consider it and then make decisions accordingly. That is the clear and systematic way we have approached this in ukraine. We are proud of the type, quantity and capacity of the material, the intelligence and other forms of support we have provided ukraine. We will continue to give them what they need because the ultimate as that in this or above all others is the courage and reverie of the ukrainian fighters on the front lines and the people bravery of the ukrainian fighters on the front lines and the people standing up there. Having what they need recently included cluster bombs. Could you explain what the military value to them would be . What would they use them for . I would divide the question about cluster bombs into two categories. One is what do cluster bombs do that rounds of 155 ammunition dont. The second is what do cluster bombs do as opposed to having nothing . The reason i raised the second point is because we have today provided an overwhelming amount of 155 ammunition to ukraine collectively from around the world from u. S. Stocks, partner stocks, more than 1. 5 one million rounds of ammunition. The total amount in our stockpiles has come down. The monthly production of 155 is not sufficient to meet ukraines need for offense and defense. We recognize that several months ago recognized that several months ago. We up to the production of 155 dramatically so we could meet all the needs necessary for ukraine, us, everybody, all of our allies and partners. It takes time. I think a lot of us think about the world war ii concept, rosie the riveter, rolling tanks and planes off the production lines that were converted from being car factories. We did that in a matter of months. The severe sheer sophistication of these rounds, the time it takes to get from x thousand rounds today to more is a matter of months. We will not leave ukraine defenseless. That is why the president decided to bridge that gap, we would provide cluster munitions because the alternative was that not having enough bullets. The single biggest military value is that it sustains their artillery capacity in a war that is fundamentally an artillery fight. In addition to that, cluster munitions do provide a better capacity to defend an onslaught from the russians. We are not just focused on a counteroffensive, we are focused on ensuring the russians cannot attack and overrun you positions along the front line. Of course, it creates more opportunities in the counteroffensive. Spread the fire more broadly. For that set of reasons, the president ultimately determined that this was something we were going to provide ukraine and we have delivered them and they are now using them. One of the explanations for why the screening counteroffensive hasnt i will get to china in a moment. One of the expeditions is they have not put a majority of their combat brigade into action yet. They might lack ammunition. It gives them more ammunition to blast through those very thick minefields and fortification that russia has laid out last winter. Is it your understanding that the counteroffensive has yet to come . I cannot say yes to that question because the real counteroffensive began the day the First Ukrainian hit the line and put their life on the line and there have already been significant amounts of casualties and death of ukrainian fighters in this counteroffensive. It is well underway and it is hard knowing hard going. We said it would be hard going. There are other obstacles for the ukrainians to work through but it is also the case that ukraine has a substantial amount of combat power it has not yet committed to the fight and it is trying to choose its moment to commit that combat power to the fight when he will have a maximum impact on the battlefield. We are in close consultation with ukrainians on the conditions for that. Ultimately, that is a decision they will make. It is at that moment when they make that commitment that we will see what the likely result of this counteroffensive will be. Track to is track 2 is one way to do it. They have been doing it in lavrov. Is it possible to achieve a credible peace . Credible peace that ukrainians would accept while putin is the head of russia . Is hard to say what would be acceptable to the russians. From our perspective, incredible peace requires the basic principles of the u. N. Charter be honored. It says that sovereignty and territorial integrity are sacrosanct. It says you cant take your neighbors territory by force. From our perspective, that has to be a fundamental paintable of the peace between russia and ukraine. Can put in ever except that at the bargaining table . I cant answer that question. He is clearly not preparing to accept that proposition today. From the u. S. Perspective, we will continue to stand behind that principle alongside our partners. Also, alongside ukraine. Ukraine will choose when it was to negotiate and we will support them in that. In the meantime, it is about putting them in the best possible position on the battlefield so they are in the best possible position when they choose to go there. They are in an existential fight. We are in support of their fight but they are seeing the whites of russian eyeballs. One of the things, nord stream two, it seems that ukrainians did sabotage that. Is it time to concede that is what happened for very understandable reasons . As you know, there is an Ongoing Investigation in multiple countries in europe and the last thing i am going to do to our allies in europe is front run an investigation that they are conducting. We will let that play out the results of that investigation and i will not prejudge. Lets move on to china. It has been a pretty rocky, topsyturvy year. The chinese spy balloon, etc. The carryover from pelosi visiting taiwan wiping out whatever progress President Biden and president xi made. That seemed to come to an end when you met with the chinese for an official in vienna for an official foreign official in vienna. This isnt the first time that you talk to. This tends to lower the tensions. What passes through that seems to allude other actors . It was a lot of hours. 12 to 46 hours. I do think there is some value in a channel that is relatively lowkey. Where there is not press. We did not even do a camera spray. It allows for a frank and candid interchange of ideas where we dont have to go out and intermediate what we said to each other through media and score points. I think that matters. That is point number one. Point number two, i think there was a gap in that time between perception and reality on both sides about what our intentions were toward one another and toward the relationship. Actually being able to sit down and say this is what we are about and this is not what we are about in a way had a brush clearing quality to it that paved the way for secretary blinken to sit with president xi and other chinese leaders. Also, for secretary yelling to go yellen to go. Also, henry kissinger. Former secretary kissinger former secretary kissinger was going for himself and not resenting the u. S. Government. Part of it is about representing the u. S. Government. Part of it was being straightforward. I had the opportunity to say here is why we have taken the actions we have taken. Here is why we will take other actions and how you should perceive them. Here is how we can manage the relationship effectively and here are ways that the u. S. And p. R. C. Can work on common interests. I think being clear, straightforward and setting the emotions, the rhetoric and some of these larger philosophical framings and getting down to the core practicalities i think there is a genuine possibility for a stable relationship even though that relationship is inherently competitive and will involve us doing things that beijing doesnt like and involve beijing doing things that we dont like. It is about being able to manage that set of structural factors and that is what we are engaged in right now. Capitation paired with diplomacy to produce an outcome where the competition does not fear into conflict. One of the ways of stabilizing what is an inherently terrifying prospect is having the cold war style guardrails that were put in place after the cuban missile crisis. We got secretary rice here. She was in your job. She had that moment of tension where u. S. Pilots were forced down and held hostage. Even then, in the pre9 11 era, that was a moment of great tension. Today, given the traffic across the street and the south china sea, and the freedom of navigation patrols, you heard of that happening and we still dont have any guardrails. What will it take to persuade the chinese, what does he say when he says we need guardrails . One of the things that the prc likes to point out is to say the equivalent i dont want to read out his conversation. Just to be careful that i am not violating what we do inside the room, this is just my characterization on the overall chinese attitude on this. He seems to be something along the lines of the following if you wear a seatbelt in a car, you will be incentive to drive faster and more crazy and you are more likely to have a crash. The concern about guardrails is guardrails means you can act the United States can take on more risk because there is some safety net under the high wire you are walking along or whatever other analogies i can mix while i am out here. You understand that is the basic logic of it. What we have tried to explain is actually the seatbelt is a great analogy because where is he does has dramatically lowered the consequences of Car Accidents and is an inherently good thing. Fundamentally, the United States stands prepared to engage at every level of military communication to avoid the escalation and frankly, the prc does not. You heard from them at this conference yesterday. A realworld example of where he has tried to engage his p. R. C. Counterparts, he has been unable to do so. From our perspective, this is about basic responsibility. We are prepared to step up to our responsibility. We believe the prc should do the same. The fact that they havent is something i think you need to answer for. The chinese say that you sanction to their defense minister. That is the reason for him not meeting secretary austin. Would it be pragmatic to say under our law, we sanctioned you. We will lift the sanctions because we dont want there to be any reason for you to not have military to military guardrails, hardlines. A couple of responses to that. At many other levels of the military minister of defense have many others that are not talking to their counterparts. It raises some questions about the extent to which this is the actual reason. Secondly, many of us in the u. S. Government are sanctioned by the russian government. My colleagues across the National Security, cabinet officials that sit on the National Security council. We think a similar proposition should apply with respect to the pla. They have chosen to take a different course. We regard the basic proposition of highlevel communication between our military officials. To be as close as they will to a nobrainer in geopolitics. That is something that beijing needs to speak to. Early in the Biden Administration, he had one of his cause with president xi. You gave the rita that in future talks, we would cover strategic stability. That is code for nuclear weapons. The most key thing for Information Exchange between the u. S. And china. That has not happened, right . How important is it that it does happen . Vital. If you look at what china is doing with respect to the buildup of Nuclear Capabilities as well as a series of quiet exotic forms of weaponry that have themselves, Nuclear Capabilities, the need for basic risk reduction, understanding one anothers doctrines, intentions, modes of operation is acute. One thing i have pointed out to my chinese counterparts in recent years is at various points in the ukraine crisis where we have seen Nuclear Saber rattling is that we have known how to deal with that. We have decades of months old memory with russians. Strategic arms control. We dont have that with china and that is inherently destabilizing. That is something we need to generate through intensive dialogue between the u. S. And china. I gave a speech at the Arms Control Association and it basically said United States remains fundamentally available for this dialogue. We hope that at some point the chinese side will choose to join us in that because this comes down to the basic responsibilities of Nuclear Powers and is a responsibility that we see beijing not stepping up to right now. In terms of dialogue, secretary blinkens counterpart has not been seen in public for 26 days. Some of the rumors whether they are credible or not, they are fairly sinister about what fate other than sickness might have befallen him. We dont know. All we know is that secretary blinken was meant to be the foreign minister. He ended up meeting with his counterpart instead because he traveled in the Foreign Ministers stead. We have no information. I want to leave a little time for audience questions. You have given a very landmark speech at brookings a few weeks ago about the New Washington conservatives. This is an important speech. It built on the speech that you gave last year were you characterized the restrictions on our technology exports. Making equipment, manufacturing equipment and having a small yard. That does not mean i believe you have understandably been visited by lots of senior tech leaders. Including the head of intel. His argument was china is a third of our bottom line. We used that bottom line to Fund Development here in the United States so we can remain cutting edge. Have those arguments at home . How have you responded . We said small yard, high fence. We have to keep it small. We are talking about a very small number of very high end chips that were covered by the semiconductor and you factoring agreement you referred to. The vast majority of sales of chips designed by the United States to china has continued unabated. It continues to stay, it continues such that Pat Gelsinger could sit on the stage and say we are getting ready for china. We have not controlled that. Bilateral trade between United States and china hit an alltime high last year. From our perspective, continuing to focus on foundational technologies with National Security applications inside a small yard, that will be our focus and we will continue to prove that out over time. The vast majority of trade and interchange between the u. S. And china will not be affected by those National Security applications but we are also not going to shy away from the basic proposition that u. S. And allied technologies should not be exploited to undermine u. S. And allied security. We will continue to look at very targeted, very specific restrictions on technology and make judgments rigorously, carefully, methodically and in deep consultation with our private sector. I have the opportunity to sit with some of the ceos last week. We are going to do this very carefully. That is what i believe we have proven over the last two years. That will be how we approach things going forward. You are characterizing the chinese as thinking you are playing a zerosum game here. The chinese had a memorable the chinese official had a memorable analogy. I am not sorry about that. You are not accountable for that analogy. The speedos are made in china. This is what they believe. There is a larger philosophical question about the endgame with china. A lot of cold war analogies are made but the differences we can envisage the collapse of the soviet union. We were seeking to defeat the ideological competitor. Is it about chinas regime . Is it a permanent feature about chinas size . It has no sort of natural conclusion like the cold war. When i came to the government, i thought this was reported in President Bidens thinking. His approach, we are not aiming toward an instate where at the end of it, it is all over. We will have to live with the peoples republic of china as a landscape indefinitely. We will have to learn to live together. That is a basic strategic presence. We are looking to establish a steady state that is fundamentally favorable to the interest and values of the United States because we think that is a more stable, prosperous and secure world. That goes from dealing with the largest peacetime buildup in history which we are contacting with from the prc to the domination of critical supply chains that create strategic dependencies that we are looking to move away from from a series of other forms in intimidation that we will not shy away from working with allies to work against. At the same time, as we have demonstrated over the course of the past few months, engaging diplomacy to manage the competitive aspects of the relationship. We also look for areas where china and United States to Work Together in the service of our people, the people of the prc and the people of the world as a whole. I think this will be a feature of the International Landscape out into the future. We recognize that, we are prepared to manage that and i believe my job as National Security advisor with direction the direction of President Biden is to put the United States in the strongest possible position to manage that relationship effectively. Meaning strength at home, strength with allies and a clarity of purpose on everything from the kinds of rules and norms that are being set in a way that is transparent and in service of practical problemsolving. That is what we are working out every day. That is the core of our approach to china. I will say with respect to the ambassador, it is interesting to hear him cry foul when you look at a series of policies, china has them. Export controls, china has them, cyber enabled espionage, the notion of him sitting here and saying america came out of the blue with unfair competition, that is a reasonable net assessment of the circumstances in the relationship. I am not here to incriminate, i am here to say we look at certain behaviors on the part of the prc. We want to do something about them. They look at certain things we do. They will look at the steps we are taking and we will continue to work toward a stable, effective relationship with china. I am an unselfish person and i realize i am feeling audience time. If you could put your hands up, the lady toward the back there . I am very grateful that the United States of america will continue to provide support to ukraine which we need to win. That islamic question is about when the United States of america will start to tissue crating pilot to use f16s. The problem is this Ukrainian Pilot that was in the United States of america, he explained that we used the plans for identification of other planes in the sky. That is why russian planes hit them with rockets. Much quicker than they are able to identify them. We still have other pilots who are waiting and want to learn how to use f16s. The question is when it happens, when will the United States teach Ukrainian Pilots . Thank you for your courage and bravery. President biden announced the United States will work with allies and partners in nato who also have f16s to begin a process of training Ukrainian Pilots. We have been working over the course of the past several weeks to put in place that training program. There are a number of elements to that. The more straightforward pieces like translating the necessary manuals into ukrainian. There are more complicated pieces like creating the technical platforms to conduct this training as rapidly as possible because the typical training takes a very long time. We are in the process of working with our colleagues in the netherlands, in romania, denmark, norway, other countries to establish the locations, the pilots and to begin the training. I cant give you a precise date but i can tell you this is a matter of weeks, not a matter of months. It is not because we are just waiting until august to start arbitrarily. It is because people are getting up at the pentagon, going to work, reporting all the way up to the secretary of defense on the progress of putting in place what is necessary to do a very complex task. That is the rapid training of pilots on f16s so they can be transferred and put into the fight. That is ongoing as we speak on friday. It will continue until we can have the First Ukrainian in a cockpit of an f16. That is currently being prepared actively, rapidly with our nato allies. Two minutes left. The gentleman there, could you make this question shorter than a tweet . Thank you. I want to address the production question you raised, the rosie the riveter analogy. There is a statute on the books that would cut time and allow the administration to direct all kinds of activity by the private sector with respect to production. I know there are others but this is one that would cut a great deal. It was viewed 99 times in the pandemic to produce gloves and masks. It was used once in this were to prevent the seizure of russian vessels. Never for the production of ammunition. I was wondering if we could address that. At present, the dpa is not the issue. Issuing a dpa declaration would not from our perspective speed up production. If we decided it would or could, we would use it tomorrow. We are actively working as rapidly as possible to build out the production lines for 155. We dont want to lose a day. There is not a dollar that we will sit on the sidelines that could be doing that. I get a little passionate about this because the suggestion that we are leaving something on the shelf to speed this along to get the ukrainians the single capability they need more than any other capability is not corrected. We are trying to do everything we humanly can and we are looking at a series of tools and authorities to continue to do it. The challenge in terms of speeding the production, that being said, i go back and asked the question every day if there is another use of the tool that could do this, if they were, we would do it. That seems like an appropriate time to end. Cspan washington journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy. From washington, d. C. And across the country. Wednesday morning, we will talk about the recent u. S. Credit rating downgrade and economic governance with the former director of the Congressional Budget Office and visiting fellow at george mason university. Then, a member of the National ParksConservation Association discusses access to u. S. National parks. Join the conversation live at 7 00 eastern wednesday morning on cspan, cspan now or online at cspan. Org. Wednesday, officials from the private sector and federal government discuss space strategy at this years aspen security forum. That starts at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Just after 8 30, more from the same event with representatives from google and the White House Office of science and technology talking about opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence. You can watch on the cspan now video app or online at cspan. Org. Be uptodate on the latest in publishing with book tvs podcast about books with current Nonfiction Book releases, plus bestseller , as well as insider news. Or wherever you get your podcasts. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government, were funded by these Television Companies and more, including midco