REMARKS BY APNSA JAKE SULLIVAN IN FIRESIDE CHAT

REMARKS BY APNSA JAKE SULLIVAN IN FIRESIDE CHAT: MR. SEVASTOPULO: Every one of you, good evening. Jake, I’m glad to see you. Now that you’ve left Washington, how do you feel? Is it a happy feeling?

MR. SULLIVAN: It’s an amazing sensation. Laughter.)

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Consequently, would you agree that I will take you back there for just two minutes? Laughs.)

MR. SULLIVAN: That, I suppose, comes with the job.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: It is notable that liberals and givers to leftists are coming down on President Biden to pull out from the race. I will not inquire about the campaign because I am aware that you cannot. Nevertheless, I’d like to know: Do you notice any shifts in the perception that adversaries have of the United States? Given Washington’s numerous distractions, is there any indication that they are about to act?

MR. SULLIVAN: First and foremost, you ought to be aware that we held the NATO Summit last week. Anja was kind enough to talk about our efforts to treat American allies.

A demonstration of unity, purpose, dynamism, and, yes, burden sharing that has not occurred in a long time can be seen in the outcomes of that summit. Ukraine was also surrounded by unity. There was consensus when it came to the Russian threat. Likewise, it was fortitude around the risk from China, where there was a fundamental declaration in that dispatch about the way China tends to a test to the overseas neighborhood.

I believe that our adversaries saw that the United States of America, led by President Biden, had gathered and mobilized the most powerful alliance in the world. We also marked our 75th anniversary and made significant preparations for the Alliance’s future.

As a result, we will continue to drive toward a truce and prisoner deal in Gaza all day, every day. We will also continue to support Ukraine in the conflict zone, chip away at the full range of drives that we are working on, and we will convince our enemies that if they want to screw with the United States and our partners, they will be extremely shocked about what the future holds for them.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: And just to be clear, U.S. intelligence hasn’t found any signs that any of these enemies might be about to harm the United States?

MR. SULLIVAN: Look, this is a year of political races all things considered. Furthermore, we are very much aware of the way that our enemies view American decisions as any open doors to attempt to impact, subvert trust in our vote based system, and put their unfair influence into the balance, as has been talked about at the discussion this year and previously.

In addition, a report released last week by the Director of National Intelligence suggests that they will also return to that this year. In addition, we are clearly inclined in that direction. In addition, we are putting in a lot of effort to combat it, safeguard the security of our voting system, and maintain the fairness of our elections. Therefore, we will keep doing that.

We don’t, in any case, until further notice, notice any such thing as far as some other particular sort of danger presented by countries.REMARKS BY APNSA JAKE SULLIVAN IN FIRESIDE CHAT AT THE ASPEN SECURITY FORUM  However, we do observe that our adversaries challenge American interests in numerous ways and undermine American partners and allies. In addition, as you are aware, we are working together with those partners on a comprehensive set of exercises to counteract that.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: We should talk about Gaza and the Middle East. I accept that Netanyahu will show up in Washington on Monday. His potential for improvement in his relationship with Vice President Biden is also not surprising. Anyway, when they meet on Monday, what message will President Biden pass on to Bibi?

MR. SULLIVAN: During the meeting between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu, the ceasefire and hostage agreement will be the primary topic of discussion. The President had told the world about it half a month earlier: There is a diagram, a pathway to get the detainees home, a ceasefire set up, humane assistance overflowed into Gaza, and a while later a phase to create more vital concordance and strength across the Middle East. That took place toward the end of May, and throughout the month of June, he was successful in securing Israel’s commitment to it, as well as the support of the G7, the United Nations Security Council, the nations in the region, and global support for it.

The commitment of Hamas to the President’s broad framework is now available. However, there are some details to sort out because it is difficult to implement a ceasefire in this situation. These subtleties incorporate Israel’s tactical presence, the progression of philanthropic guide, and what will befall the Gaza Strip over the long haul.

As a result, the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu will focus on what it will take for the United States of America and Israel to work together, as well as for the United States of America to work with the other guarantors and mediators involved in this process, to reach an agreement in the coming weeks.

Additionally, as Secretary Blinken informed you earlier today, we believe there is a chance to complete it. We know that there are still barriers to survive. Let’s also use the following week to try to negotiate around those obstacles.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Because I am Irish, I had to try to figure out what Tony Blinken meant when he told me that you are at the 10-yard line. Laughter.) But I think I’m there.

This is my concern: Have you reached an agreement yet regarding the transition from a temporary, interim ceasefire to a permanent ceasefire? Or, on the other hand, is that something that should be resolved once the first truce is established?

REMARKS BY APNSA JAKE SULLIVAN IN FIRESIDE CHAT: MR. SULLIVAN: This was pretty clearly stated by President Biden when he spoke publicly about the deal. This transaction goes through three stages. In order to transition from phase one to phase two, Israel and Hamas must have an indirect conversation about the conditions. One of the central conditions is how you carry out the second phase’s remaining hostage and prisoner swap, but there are also other conditions.

Additionally, those discussions will be challenging, as stated by President Biden. They will require a significant amount of exchange and reciprocation. And despite the fact that the initial stage lasts for a month and a half, the President stated that one of the features of this system is that the initial stage could be extended until the parties truly reach an agreement and move on to stage two, provided that they are at the table with the middle people and are gaining ground.

Therefore, Hamas and Israel are both aware of the majority of that. Concerning the succession from stage one to stage two, there are a specialized subtleties that still up in the air. That is ultimately one of the issues that needs to be resolved. Additionally, it is one of the topics that President Biden and the Prime Minister can discuss the following week.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: How certain do you believe you will arrive there?

MR. SULLIVAN: You know, I have taken in the most troublesome way imaginable never to use “certainty” in a comparative sentence as “the Middle East.” ( Laughter.) Therefore, I will state that I believe we have the best opportunity to reach a conclusion since the November short prisoner bargain. It is accessible for snatches. The overall framework is well understood and accepted by most people.

As a result, the real issue is: Can we sort out both sides’ politics and psychology, as well as the practicalities of putting together a complicated ceasefire in this situation? I believe that the answer to those questions is “yes.” Moreover, not entirely settled to acknowledge it. Thus, we won’t quit working until we have this thing set up, and we ought to do so immediately.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Is the President going to see a duplicate or get a readout of what Bibi plans to tell Congress in his discourse on Wednesday when he meets with Bibi on Monday?

Additionally, the last time Bibi addressed Congress, her remarks were not particularly complimentary of the Obama-Biden administration, as you will remember better than I do. How concerned are you with the possibility that Bibi will say something on Wednesday that will obstruct progress toward that goal?

MR. SULLIVAN: Taking everything into consideration, we had discussions about Iran and Lebanon last week with two high-ranking Israeli officials present. Ron Dermer and Tzachi Hanegbi served as Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs and National Security Advisor, respectively. Furthermore, they provided us with an overall thought of what the State head will say in his discourse. They said he’s wanting to help a lot of subjects and disputes that are not in that frame of mind in irregularity to our system, American procedure.

However, they will continue to work on that speech until the very last minute, just as we do on our side. I wonder if we will actually see a copy of the comments before he goes up. However, I have every confidence that the top state leader will explain to the President exactly what he intends to say.

Also, discourses and governmental issues are rarely sure. However, we anticipate that his speech will demonstrate the ways in which the United States and Israel work together to combat terrorism, to address regional issues, and to pursue a ceasefire and hostage agreement.

I’ll stay tuned, and you’ll stay tuned, no matter what happens. We’ll see. However, in the days leading up to the speech, I anticipate having productive discussions with the Israeli government.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Are you not going to give us a complete preview of it yourself today?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is certain that the Israelis will be responsible for that.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: OK, thank you.

I have to learn more about Evan Gershkovich. Earlier today, the President offered an explanation in which he criticized his 16-year prison sentence for improper news coverage. Does the manner in which he has been sentenced really make it easier to negotiate with a detainee?

MR. SULLIVAN: Since Evan was taken, but even before Evan was taken, when Paul Whelan, you know, was in jail for five and a half years, going back to the previous organization, one of the President’s highest priorities has been to bring every American home, not just from Russia but from other countries around the world.

I have to say that the record of this administration is quite remarkable. You were joined by Roger Carstens at the forum a few days ago. We have unjustly detained or taken nearly 50 Americans home as hostages. We had the option to achieve that by going with hard decisions, participating in troublesome tact, and the President focusing on this. That holds true for Evan Gershkovich as well. Because, as you mentioned, he has been imprisoned and found guilty of journalism for a cause that we in this country care deeply about, the President will not rest until we bring him home—a first in his case.

We will do everything in our power to persuade Russia to release Evan and Paul and ensure their safe return home to answer your specific question. Also, we might want to see that happen today, tomorrow, or the next day.

However, as I am seated on the stage, I am unable to predict what is likely to occur or how the Russian mind will respond to the issue of conviction and how it will impact any negotiations.

All I can say is that this is our sole focus; We are set on achieving this goal. And I will regard it as one of the most important tasks between now and the end of the year, especially now that the month is coming to a close. We need to try to finish something so we can bring him home. Applause.)

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Could we shift to Ukraine, if we may.

You ought to be aware that the administration and the White House had to work hard a few months ago to persuade Congress to provide the substantial funding package. If J.D. Vance and Donald Trump win the election, Ukraine will have a much harder time in Washington. How do you convince American partners and allies around the world that the United States has the staying power for Ukraine despite the highly successful NATO Summit?

And lastly, just as a follow-up, do the Europeans have to do a lot more than they are doing right now? I believe it was the Estonian head of the foreign service in Europe because, as someone stated earlier this week, “the house is on fire.”

MR. SULLIVAN: First and foremost, I believe Americans underestimate the extent of European progress. When you look at their commitment to Ukraine in terms of military support, financial support, compassionate support, and other structures, they are doing significantly more than the United States.

Now more than ever, this war’s success depends on the United States of America. It’s critical to have our weapons, our abilities, and the sheer volume of what we can give. Europe, on the other hand, merits credit for acting in a manner unique to this conflict since the end of the Cold War. In addition, that is a direct consequence of the recognition of the fundamental significance of Ukraine’s dominance here for European security. In addition, that was mentioned by my Estonian colleague, my German colleague, and others in the preceding panel.

I certainly do not represent the policies of anyone else but the administration I am currently serving, and I do not know what will occur in the future.

As you have heard from senators from both parties, there is strong bipartisan support in this country, Democrats and Republicans, for continuing support for Ukraine, with over 70 votes in the Senate and over 300 votes in the House.

So, all I can say is that this well of support actually reflects the deep and unwavering support of the American people. Over the past two years, I’ve sat in Aspen conversations in which people have said, “Oh, America is going to get tired of this thing.” Individuals in the US will quit focusing. Poll after poll shows that Americans still care about, support, and believe it is our responsibility to continue supporting Ukraine in its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

And what I would suggest is that the reservoir of support for Ukraine will continue regardless of what happens in our politics. I also hope that American support for Ukraine will continue in the future.

The main thing we can do now is guarantee that the design is set up so that help can go on in a proficient way.

Presidents Biden and Zelenskyy signed a bilateral security agreement at the G7 summit in Italy, stating that we would assist Ukraine in the current conflict, ensure that it could defend itself in the future, and ward off any further aggression.

Then, at the NATO Summit, he told a group of twenty leaders who had also signed bilateral security agreements, “We are going to do this together.” In addition, NATO will institutionally play a significant role in serving as the foundation of that assistance over the long term, enduring through premise.

I have no clue about what will come to pass this fall or one year from now. I can tell you that putting that architecture into action is the best way for us to ensure that Ukraine receives the support it not only needs but also fundamentally deserves from its partners in the West. Furthermore, I will do everything possible to guarantee that it perseveres.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: But just to press a little bit, do you think that in Europe, they need some kind of insurance? You stated that America requires leadership. Let’s say that American initiative slows down a little. What first steps do they take to prepare for that possible outcome now? What ought to they begin doing?

MR. SULLIVAN: It all comes down to what they are doing. As they expand their domestic skills, we are supporting them. Additionally, Ukraine’s ingenuity, manufacturing prowess as a significant defense manufacturer over decades, and actual efforts demonstrate that it is able to expand its own defense capacity, which is expanding monthly.

Moreover, as we were essentially talking about with the Europeans, you at present have 18 European countries, heading up towards 30 — that have agreed to these individual security game plans to themselves — commit long stretch liabilities. The NATO institutional job, which was laid out at the latest highest point and will persevere through numerous organizations for quite a long time into the future, is the second.

At the point when you put those pieces together, you likewise calculate the way that a country battling for its sway, an area, and opportunity will likewise have the drive and spirit to stand up and pronounce, “We will ensure that the final plan of this is one in which we win and we don’t fizzle.”

This, as I would see it, is the blend of components Ukraine should accomplish. That ability is mine. We can do that each and every day of the week. That is our objective whenever we have the chance to accomplish it.

Additionally, I am indebted to the European nations that have offered their assistance. In addition, I am grateful to be working closely with Ukrainians who see their prolonged security as a result of their association with the West but also as a result of investing in their own primary sources of solidarity and building on those over time.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: One last question about Ukraine. At the moment, Ukraine is restricted in its ability to use American weapons to fire at Russia. Throughout the war, the United States’ position on F-16s, ATACMS, and other weapons has changed; at first, you weren’t pushing for them to be utilized in Ukraine, yet you in the end came around to the thought or concluded that all was good and well.

Is there any possibility that the United States of America would declare to Ukraine, “You can use U.S. weapons toward a much deeper part of Russia?” Or, given the possibility of escalation, is that completely out of the question?

MR. SULLIVAN: In point of fact, this inquiry was made to the President during the press conference that took place immediately following the NATO Summit. In addition, what he basically said was: We weigh the situation based on what we know about Ukraine’s requirements and what we can offer.

In addition, as the war has progressed, our assistance, the capabilities we provided, and the circumstances in which we provided them have all changed.

As a result, I am unable to provide a definitive response to your inquiry regarding what lies ahead. The President’s ongoing position, I can tell you, is that conditions changed. In point of fact, Russia launched a new offensive across the border in Kharkiv. According to common sense, Ukraine also needed to be able to respond to that offensive. So, “OK, obviously, go for it,” the President said. However, he has not altered his long-range strike strategy toward Russia yet.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: From there, I want to travel to China, Russia, and Ukraine. Do you know of any evidence that China has reduced the supply of dual-use items that, despite not being weapons, are being used to kill on the battlefield?

Is there any indication that that is decreasing? And in the event that this is not the case, at what point will the United States take the next step in enforcing its sanctions, such as penalizing Chinese banks, that would have real repercussions?

MR. SULLIVAN: We have observed how they respond when we approach them and state, “Here’s a bank that is facilitating a transaction.” That raises concerns for us. We have witnessed their response to that.

The general picture, be that as it may, isn’t engaging. China continues to be a significant supplier of dual-purpose goods to Russia’s war machine. Also, double use things are to some degree unique; Washington makes good use of it. What it involves: Weapons are made from the same tools and equipment that kill Ukrainians and oppress Ukraine. Additionally, we believe that China should stop because it fundamentally defies the moral standards that nation-states are expected to uphold. China shouldn’t be supporting Russia in the conflict in Ukraine.

Because of this, they respond in particular ways. However, the master plan continues to go off base, as indicated by my perspective, and we have minced no words about that; We have been exceptionally open and public about it. Naturally, our European partners and we also say that to them directly in conversation. Moreover, the NATO Highest point offered areas of strength for an expression with respect to this, which I might want to repeat here.

We have demonstrated over time that we are prepared to impose sanctions on specific organizations and individuals, including in China and other nations, regarding the next steps. Additionally, this pattern will continue as we proceed. While I’m here, I have no declarations to make, however as the circumstance keeps on creating before long, I accept that extra endorses will be carried out.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Be that as it may, you have been naming and disgracing them for a lot of time, no doubt for over a year, while possibly not more. If they haven’t taken a different route, would you confirm or deny that you are getting very close to tightening approvals, again focusing on Chinese security forces but also financial institutions or other places where it could really hurt in Beijing?

MR. SULLIVAN: To start, Demetri, the President conceded the Secretary of the Depository, as a team with the remainder of the organization, practically remarkable power to force sanctions on Chinese and other worldwide banks that work with these exchanges for Russia’s conflict machine. That is presently set up. We didn’t put that in place so that it could remain there. That was put in place so that we could take action against a bank that is subject to those sanctions.

Again, I don’t have a prediction for today. However, I will say that over time, we have developed the tools to respond to this kind of behavior, and we will.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Let’s sort of move on to China itself. Overall, up until this past year’s meeting between President Biden and Xi Jinping in San Francisco, partners and a few partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific were secretly concerned that the United States and China might be preparing to fight over Taiwan. How much did you worry about that possibility in the first three years? Also, how would you at present assess that gamble?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, battle in Taiwan or across the Taiwan Waterway would be devastating for the whole world, including Taiwan, China, the US, and every other person.

As a result, it has indeed worried me. Moreover, I accept that it should be an essential objective of American strategy to keep that from happening; that we keep China from endeavoring to take Taiwan by war and deter China from truly doing as such.

Consequently, we have deliberately worked all through the past three years to explain that we should see the help of amicability and security across the Taiwan Stream and that we would prefer not to see uneven changes to the same old thing from either side. We have likewise answered properly when we have noticed China’s activities that sabotage harmony and strength, and we will keep on doing as such.

Consequently, this remains a top priority for US policy. The peace and stability that can be maintained across the Taiwan Strait is crucial to the world’s peace and stability.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Accordingly, I mean, accepting you perceive how you’ve overseen associations, I mean, you’ve had unfathomable advancement in the Indo-Pacific, getting the Europeans to comprehend that the Indo-Pacific theater and the Euro-Atlantic scene are associated, getting accomplices to work with each other — you know, Philippines, Australia, Japan, and so forth. Korea, South, and Japan.

However, China has significantly more military resources than the United States in the western Pacific and the region where a Taiwan dispute will be fought. Consequently, my question is — and this is sort of a return to the pivot question, which I am aware that no one likes: Is it really necessary for the United States of America to increase its military presence in the western Pacific, such as in the area around the South China Sea, etc.? according to what you say, in order to increase deterrence and avoid a conflict that would be disastrous for the world?

MR. SULLIVAN: As you can see from our actions regarding our alliance system and infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific, we are not attempting to establish an Asian NATO. On the other hand, we have developed relationships with our allies in a way that has never really been a part of U.S. policy toward Asia before. There has been a lot of a partnership-oriented mindset.

We hope to strengthen the collaborations between us and our partners, the United States, Japan, and Korea, in this setting; USA, Japan, and the Philippines; the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia; There is a diplomatic component to that feature, including Australia, Japan, and other nations. It has technology as a component. It has to do with economics. Demetri, it does indeed contain a component of military capability.

As a result, our efforts in the Camp David Triangle, our efforts in the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the Philippines, and our supply of nuclear submarines to Australia through AUKUS will have a significant impact on the physical presence and force distribution of the United States and our allies throughout the region, not to start a war but to stop one.

You are already aware of some of that. You’ll see more of that in the years to come. In addition, I consider that to be one of this organization’s truly remarkable accomplishments, one that we can learn strength from in the years to come.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: That is to say, Taiwan and North Korea are clearly very hazardous likely flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific. The Second Thomas Shoal, on the other hand, is without a doubt the most perilous location at the moment. The Sierra Madre, a dingy WWII vessel, is positioned there. There are Filipino troops stationed on that ship. Additionally, the Chinese attempt to prevent resupply missions, which they sometimes succeed in doing.

In the Indo-Pacific, the Philippines is your most established peace accord partner. Is there anything else the United States can do in addition to referring to that treaty, which has not been discussed thus far? I hear someone within the administration say, “Actually, the United States should start providing naval escorts for the Philippine supply ships.” What do you honestly think about that? Is that an excessive amount?

MR. SULLIVAN: To begin, we had made it abundantly clear that the mutual defense treaty applies to public vessels in the South China Sea. As a result, China fully comprehends our perspective regarding the mutual defense treaty’s application in the event that that line is crossed. A crucial point is that. We see it as a place of stability. We have accentuated this to the PRC both openly and firmly. What’s more, the Philippines know about that and feel a debt of gratitude.

Second, we have attempted to intently work with the Philippines on these choices since they ought to start to lead the pack: step by step instructions to best reconfigure this boat with the goal that the group individuals on board have sufficient food, water, and different supplies to proceed with their central goal. In addition, we will cooperate fully with the Philippines to ensure that this occurs.

In any case, our preference is for the upkeep of the norm there, the limit of the Philippines to conduct these resupplies, as far as unambiguous ideas of activities or the specific manner in which the United States would be locked in. We will continue to provide the Philippines with support and stand by them as they work toward that goal.

Moreover, I will practice intense mindfulness while examining hypotheticals if we want to get to it, as de-heightening and the Philippines’ capacity to direct resupplies are the main things at the present time. We’ll work hard to get there because we think it’s possible.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: A Chinese government worker in an inflatable crossed the United States about 18 months earlier, more or less here. Is that what you remember?

MR. SULLIVAN: I’m sorry you had to remind me of that. Laughter.) It was like a month in a balloon.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: for a month with balloons. In addition, I was eagerly anticipating writing a story about the FBI report on what you discovered when you rescued the inflatable fragments off the South Carolina coast. Why didn’t the report come out?

MR. SULLIVAN: First and foremost, the United States had a pretty good chance to take advantage of the balloon’s descent over water rather than land. This allowed us to investigate China’s activities and capabilities as well as the balloon’s technology. Furthermore, that is extremely delicate.

Accordingly, the White House didn’t immediate this choice. The FBI and the intelligence community, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the best course of action would be for us to take those lessons, apply them, and share them with others as needed, but not to make a big deal about it in public.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Was it more fragile than you had anticipated when you saw what it was and examined and dissected everything?

MR. SULLIVAN: It was interesting. ( Laughter.)

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Please buy Jake a beer tonight at the bar. Laughter.)

India must be my destination. I am aware that you have put a significant amount of effort into expanding U.S. relations with India. India will not change how it interacts with Russia. We are conscious of that. However, how concerned were you, according to your responses, when Head of State Modi met President Putin, essentially while President Biden was assisting the NATO chiefs in Washington?

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the best request for me is: Do we have any tangible evidence that India is strengthening its military and technological ties with Russia? I also didn’t see any tangible evidence that it was actually getting worse from that visit; that no deliverables were available in that area.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: You didn’t consider the bear hug to be significant at the time, did you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Modi, of course, greets world leaders in a particular manner. I’ve seen it very close, as a matter of fact.

See, we could never need accomplices and companions from nations we care going to appear in Moscow and embrace Putin. Naturally, we do not. I won’t sit here and say anything different to anyone.

Be that as it may, as far as our relationship with India, we see huge open doors in innovation, financial matters, statecraft, and the more extensive Indo-Pacific area’s international affairs. We want to deepen our relationship with each other as equal sovereign nations with relationships to other nations. Likewise, India has a significant relationship with Russia that they won’t cut off.

However, we genuinely acknowledge that we want to continue to have a significant trade with India about the focal points and that relationship and whether it creates long term, particularly, Demetri, considering the way that Russia is getting progressively near China, and as the lesser accessory to China, isn’t exactly going to be a remarkable and strong ally to India in a future chance or crisis. That isn’t something India needs to hear from Jake Sullivan, but it is a reality in the world. We also take this into consideration when we talk to India about our strategic plans.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence, and Bill Burns, the Director of the CIA, traveled to India approximately a year ago to discuss suspicions that the Indian government may have been involved in the assassination of a Sikh activist in Vancouver and in what turned out to be a foiled assassination plot in New York, also against a Sikh activist. Both of these assassinations were against Sikh activists.

Given that it has been a year, have you received palatable clarifications from India regarding what took place or did not take place?

MR. SULLIVAN: As a result, we made this information available to the Congress and others in the open first. That was clearly also a well-planned strategy. I sat down with Bill and Avril. I said that we would travel in the following order and actually talk about our expectations with the Indians in light of what we had learned. I also said that we would work through the process until we found a solution that we thought was good enough.

I don’t think it’s very useful to talk about the nature of that conversation in public. It’s fragile. We are trying to find a solution to it. My viewpoint is that the story has not yet been told completely; We must keep working through it. Notwithstanding, we have drawn in India in useful conversations with respect to this. In addition, we have stated our position and desired outcomes in detail. In addition, despite the fact that it is taking place out of the public eye, it has been aware and powerful, in my opinion.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: We are getting close to the end of our time. I would love to inquire about how, despite working so hard, you have maintained your boyish appearance. I won’t do that, anyway.

After I ask one of the Rising Leaders if they have a question for you, we’ll come to an end on that.

Who might want to? The friendly man on the left there.

Part of the Crowd: Thankful so much. A Rising Leader who works for the Department of State is Philip Davis (ph).

I was wondering if you could briefly talk about expanding alliances and partnerships with Africa and South America. We briefly discussed the need for increased government visits to South America and similar activities yesterday at a panel. Therefore, I’m wondering if you could talk about expanding those ties as well. I’m appreciative.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thus, simply making a stride back: First, a fantastic question. I greatly value it.

When considering the nature of geopolitics in the modern world, two strategic facts emerge: first, fierce competition from other powerful nations; two, enormous obstacles that require a significant number of partners from all over the world to participate. Both of those things are true at the same time. In addition, there are times when those very competitors need to work together on a problem-solving strategy; China and climate change, for instance.

However, the following is a significant aspect of the international system at the moment: The rest of the world communicates with China, Europe, the United States, and other nations: What advantages can we expect from you? Where do we fit in the scheme as a whole? Also, how are we ready to team up to address our kin’s necessities and track down answers for these issues that influence all of us?

As a result, the Biden administration’s strategy has centered on redefining the Western and American value proposition to the developing world to meet their priorities rather than just our list of interests in those countries.

So, what do they care about? Infrastructure after infrastructure after infrastructure is their primary concern. Framework for energy, advanced, physical, and wellbeing

We have been out of the game in a huge way on that for a really long time. Along with the G7, the President made the Organization for Worldwide Framework. “Where is this going?” was asked by a lot of people, who kind of grinned.

We met at the G7 summit in Italy last year. We have huge load of cash in the bank and a ton of wins on the board. Additionally, year after year, we are increasing those wins. Furthermore, that places a particular emphasis on Africa and the Americas.

Second, the activation of private capital, utilized by political gamble protection or cash hazard, or modest quantities of public cash that can essentially acquire capital from the sidelines to accomplish such a great deal for mechanical headway, environmental change, and monetary development.

Additionally, I met with unfamiliar pastors from various nations in the Americas just this week through a group that many people call the Americas Organization for Monetary Success. It raises yet another of those possibilities. We currently have a billion-dollar organization of private backers to assist entrepreneurs in the Americas with understanding their maximum capacity. In addition, that is only one of a number of other projects we are working on. These are not mentioned in the media. They rarely come up at the Aspen Strategy Forum.

Nonetheless, they are not just vital for the US of America’s endeavors to assist with getting away from that world yet additionally to a more secure and better world. Moreover, they are crucial for international contest. We must be able to contribute something to the partnership in order to treat other nations as partners rather than as proxies for war.

I could go on and on forever. According to the panel on technology that is in front of us, the United States of America has a huge opportunity right now to use cutting-edge technology and artificial intelligence to assist in the resolution of issues and provide other nations with the resources they require to serve their people. A tremendous opportunity.

Additionally, I must include a fitting for those in the audience who work in finance or on the Legislative Hall Slope toward the end. because we need two things. We want Slope of the legislative hall to say: Yes, we have an $880 billion defense budget. We are investing in this aspect of American statecraft insufficiently, and even that may not be sufficient. Moreover, it is very gainful to us.

In addition, we are not talking about hundreds of billions. We’re discussing moderately unobtrusive amounts of cash that can possibly open huge amounts of cash. My message to those involved in finance is now complete.

Our private sector must immediately recognize the opportunity to provide high-quality, high-standard investment in developing countries, Africa, Southeast Asia, the Global South, and Latin America. Both their and our inclinations are extraordinarily influenced by it. Furthermore, there is an enthusiastic part to this.

We were supposed to end sometime in the past, but I’m preaching right now. I’m grieved. Nevertheless, I truly care a great deal about this issue. In addition, I am grateful that you gave me the opportunity to talk about it. Applause.)

MR. SEVASTOPULO: By going long, you just demonstrated your Irish heritage.

Nonetheless, I would see the value in it assuming everybody would go along with me in offering thanks to Jake Sullivan for sitting with us today. ( Applause.) Jake, I’m grateful.