REMARKS BY APNSA JAKE SULLIVAN IN FIRESIDE CHAT AT THE ASPEN SECURITY FORUM

REMARKS BY APNSA JAKE SULLIVAN IN FIRESIDE CHAT AT THE ASPEN SECURITY FORUM: MR. SEVASTOPULO: All of you, good afternoon. I’m glad to see you, Jake. How do you feel now that you are out of Washington? Is it a positive emotion?

MR. SULLIVAN: It’s a wonderful feeling. (Laughter.)

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Therefore, would you accept that I bring you back there for just two minutes? (Laughs.)

MR. SULLIVAN: I suppose that’s just how things are.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: It is well known that Democrats and donors to Democrats are putting a lot of pressure on President Biden to withdraw from the race. I won’t ask you about the campaign because I know you can’t. However, what I’d like to know is: Secret Service director testifies about Trump assassination attempt Do you observe any change in how adversaries perceive the United States? Is there any indication that, given all of Washington’s distractions, they are about to act?

MR. SULLIVAN: First of all, you should know that last week we held the NATO Summit. Anja was kind enough to discuss our efforts to treat allies of the United States.

Furthermore, assuming you take a gander at the result of that highest point, it was a showcase of solidarity and reason and dynamism, and indeed, trouble sharing, any semblance of which we have not found in quite a while. Additionally, unity surrounded Ukraine. Concerning the Russian threat, there was unity. In addition, there was agreement regarding the threat posed by China, and that communiqué contained a significant statement about the ways in which China poses a threat to the transatlantic community.

The United States of America, under President Biden’s leadership, assembled and mobilized the world’s most powerful alliance, and I believe our adversaries saw that. Furthermore, celebrating 75 years, however setting up the Coalition for the future in a significant manner.

As a result, we will continue to work day in and day out toward a ceasefire and hostage agreement in Gaza, continue to support Ukraine on the battlefield, and work on all of our ongoing projects while warning our adversaries that if they mess with the United States and our allies, they will get a very rude awakening about what lies ahead.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: And just to be clear, U.S. intelligence has not detected any indications that any of these adversaries might be about to cause trouble for the United States?

MR. SULLIVAN: Look, this year is an election year. In addition, we are all well aware of the fact that our adversaries view American elections as opportunities to try to influence, undermine confidence in our democracy, and put their thumb on the scale, as has been discussed at the forum this year and in the past.

Additionally, a report issued by the Director of National Intelligence last week indicates that they are returning to that this year as well. And we can see that clearly. In addition, we are exerting a lot of effort to counter it, preserve the integrity of our elections, and guarantee the safety of our voting system. So we’ll continue doing that.

We do not, however, for the time being, observe anything like that in terms of any other distinct kind of threat posed by nations. However, we do observe that our adversaries undermine American partners and allies and challenge American interests in numerous ways. In addition, we are engaged in a comprehensive array of activities to counter that, coordinated with those allies.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Let’s talk about Gaza and the Middle East. I believe that Netanyahu will arrive in Washington on Monday. It is also common knowledge that he and Vice President Biden’s relationship could be improved. So, when they meet on Monday, what message will President Biden convey to Bibi?

MR. SULLIVAN: The abrogating focal point of the gathering between President Biden and State head Netanyahu will be about the truce and prisoner bargain. The President spoke to the entire world a few weeks ago: There is a plan, a way to get the hostages home, a ceasefire, an influx of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and then a foundation on which to build more peace and stability throughout the Middle East. That was at the end of May, and over the course of June, he secured Israel’s commitment to it, gained support from the G7, the U.N. Security Council, the countries in the region, and global support for it.

We now have Hamas’s commitment to the President’s broad framework. However, there are subtleties to be managed, in light of the fact that this is a muddled piece of business to attempt to execute a truce in a situation like this, as for Israel’s tactical presence, concerning compassionate help streams, and regarding what the drawn out demeanor of the Gaza Strip will be.

REMARKS BY APNSA JAKE SULLIVAN IN FIRESIDE CHAT AT THE ASPEN SECURITY FORUM:  So the President will concentrate his energy, with Top state leader Netanyahu, on the thing it will take cooperating, the U.S. also, Israel, and afterward the U.S. Joe Biden too old to be US president? Not for Malaysians working with different underwriters, different go betweens in this cycle, to finish this arrangement before very long.

Additionally, we believe there is a chance to complete it, as you were informed earlier today by Secretary Blinken. We are careful that there remain hindrances in the manner. Additionally, let’s make use of the following week to try to negotiate around those challenges.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: As a result, Tony Blinken informed me that you are at the 10-yard line, and since I am Irish, I had to try to figure out what that meant. (Laughter.) Yet I believe I am there.

The inquiry I have is: Have you arrived at understanding such a long ways as far as a progress from a, sort of, interval, impermanent truce to an extremely durable truce? Or is that something that needs to be worked out before the first ceasefire can begin?

MR. SULLIVAN: When he spoke publicly about the deal, President Biden laid this out pretty clearly. There are three stages to this transaction. Israel and Hamas must have an indirect conversation about the conditions for phase two in order to move from phase one to phase two. How you perform the remaining hostage and prisoner swap in phase two is one of the central conditions, but there are other conditions as well.

Additionally, as President Biden stated, those discussions will be challenging. They will necessitate a significant amount of reciprocation and exchange. Even though the initial phase lasts six weeks, the President said that one of the terms of this framework is that the first phase could be extended until the parties reach an agreement and move on to phase two if they continue to make progress at the table with the mediators.

So, both Israel and Hamas comprehend most of that. Concerning the sequence from phase one to phase two, there are some technical details that need to be determined. In the end, that is one of the issues we need to resolve. Additionally, it is one of the topics that President Biden will be able to discuss with the Prime Minister next week.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: How sure do you think you will get there?

MR. SULLIVAN: I’ve learned the hard way not to use the word “optimism” in the same sentence as “the Middle East,” as you may be aware. (Laughter.) Thus, what I will say is that I think we have our best open door since we have had, since the last concise prisoner bargain in November, to get to a result. It is available for whoever gets there first. The overarching framework is well-understood and widely accepted.

Therefore, the real problem is: Might we at any point work through the governmental issues on the two sides, the brain research on the two sides, and to be honest, the items of common sense of executing something as mind boggling as a truce in a situation like this. I accept the response to those questions is yes. Additionally, we are determined to accept it. As a result, we won’t stop working until we have this thing in place, and we should do so right away.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: When the President meets Bibi on Monday, would he say he will see a duplicate or get a readout on what Bibi expects to tell Congress in his discourse on Wednesday?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, last week, we had two high-ranking Israeli officials in town to talk about Iran and Lebanon. We had Ron Dermer and Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel’s National Security Advisor and Minister of Strategic Affairs, respectively. Additionally, they gave us a general idea of what the Prime Minister will say in his speech. They stated that he intends to reinforce a set of themes and arguments that are neither inconsistent with nor in opposition to American policy or our policy.

However, just like we do on our side, they will continue to work on that speech until the very last minute. Before he speaks, I doubt we will actually see a copy of the remarks. However, I anticipate that the Prime Minister will clearly communicate his message to the President.

Additionally, speeches and politics are never certain. Yet, our assumption is that his discourse will be one that doesn’t look like 2015, it seems to be something it should in the conditions of today — and that is the means by which the U.S. what’s more, Israel are attempting together to confront a fear based oppressor danger, to organize together on the local difficulties that both of our nations are confronting, and the way in which we’re proceeding to pursue a truce and prisoner bargain.

Regardless of whether that occurs, I’ll remain tuned, you’ll remain tuned. We’ll see. Be that as it may, I hope to have valuable discussions with the Israeli government in the days paving the way to the discourse.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Are you not going to provide us with a comprehensive preview yourself today?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will pass on that to the Israelis.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: OK.

I wish to inquire about Evan Gershkovich from you. In a statement this morning, the President criticized his 16-year prison term for the crime of journalism. Is it actually easier to obtain a prisoner swap deal now that he has been sentenced?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, getting all of our American citizens home, not just from Russia but from countries all over the world, has been one of the President’s top priorities not only since Evan was taken but also before he was taken, when Paul Whelan was in prison for five and a half years, dating back to the previous administration.

I have to say that this administration’s track record is quite remarkable. You had Roger Carstens over here two or three days prior at the discussion. Near 50 Americans that we have brought back, either prisoners or shamefully confined individuals. We were able to accomplish that by making difficult decisions, engaging in difficult diplomacy, and the President making this a constant priority. That also applies to Evan Gershkovich. The President will not rest until we bring him home, which is a first in his case because, as you mentioned, he has been imprisoned and found guilty of journalism for a cause that we care deeply about in this country.

To your particular inquiry, we will bend over backward we can to reach the place where Russia consents to deliver Evan and Paul, that we get them home and we get them home safe. Additionally, we would like to see that occur today, tomorrow, or the following day.

But sitting here on stage, I can’t predict what’s likely to happen or how the Russian mind thinks about the question of conviction and how it affects any negotiations.

All I can say is that we are completely focused on this; We are determined to accomplish this. What’s more, I will think of it as one of the main things among now and the year’s end, and particularly now toward the month’s end, for us to attempt to finish something where we can get him home. (Applause.)

MR. SEVASTOPULO: If you’ll allow it, let’s move to Ukraine.

You should know that the administration and White House had to put in a lot of effort to get Congress to provide the substantial funding package a few months ago. On the off chance that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are chosen, Ukraine will confront a lot harder crowd in Washington. Despite the highly successful NATO Summit, how do you persuade American partners and allies around the world that the United States has the staying power for Ukraine?

And finally, just as a follow-up, are the Europeans required to do significantly more than what they are currently doing? Because, as someone stated earlier this week, the “house is on fire,” I believe it was the Estonian head of the foreign service in Europe.

MR. SULLIVAN: First of all, I believe Americans underestimate how much the Europeans are accomplishing. In terms of military, economic, humanitarian, and other forms of assistance, their total contribution to Ukraine is significantly greater than that of the United States.

The United States of America is now crucial to this war effort. It’s important to have our weapons, our skills, and the sheer volume of what we can provide. In any case, I really do think we need to give a cap tip to Europe for having moved forward in this contention such that we have not seen from Europe since the finish of the Virus War. And this is because people now understand how important it is to the security of Europe for Ukraine to succeed here. In addition, my German colleague, my Estonian colleague, and others mentioned that in the previous panel.

Presently, I can’t anticipate the future, and I surely can’t represent the arrangement of any other person other than the organization that I right now serve.

There is strong bipartisan support for continuing support for Ukraine in this country, Democrats and Republicans, to the tune of more than 70 votes in the Senate and more than 300 votes in the House, as you have heard from senators from both parties.

Thus, well, without a doubt that that repository of help, which really mirrors a profound and withstanding support among the American public — I’ve stayed here in discussions in Aspen throughout recent years when individuals said, “Goodness, America will become weary of this thing. The American public going to quit focusing.” A large number of surveys shows the American public actually care, actually support financing Ukraine, actually support the thought that it is our compelled by a sense of honor commitment to keep on assisting Ukraine with battling for its opportunity and its sway and its regional uprightness.

And what I would suggest is that no matter what happens in our politics, the underlying groundswell, the reservoir of support for Ukraine, will continue. And I hope that continues American support for Ukraine in the future reflects that.

The only thing we can do now is ensure that the architecture is in place so that that support can continue in an efficient manner.

At the G7 summit in Italy, President Biden and President Zelenskyy signed a bilateral security agreement, which stated that we would assist Ukraine in the current conflict and ensure that it would be able to defend itself in the future and ward off any further aggression.

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

I can’t anticipate what happens this fall, one year from now. I can tell you that the best way for us to ensure that Ukraine receives the support it not only requires but also fundamentally deserves from its partners in the West is to implement that architecture. And I will do everything in my power to ensure that it endures.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: But just to press a little bit, do you believe they require some kind of insurance policy in Europe? You stated that American leadership is necessary. Let’s say that American leadership shrinks slightly. What do they begin to do now to prepare for that potential outcome? What should they begin to do?

MR. SULLIVAN: All things considered I, first of all, mean, it’s the thing they are doing. They’re developing their homegrown limit — something we are assisting them with. Furthermore, in the event that you take a gander at Ukraine’s creativity, its assembling ability as a huge safeguard producer over many years, and the genuine endeavors it’s embraced, its capacity to develop local ability to assist with shielding itself is genuine, and it is developing month on month.

Second, as we were just discussing with the Europeans, there are now 18 to 30 European nations that have signed bilateral security agreements and made long-term commitments. The NATO institutional role, which was established at the most recent summit and will endure through multiple administrations for years to come, is the second.

So you set up those pieces, and afterward you add to that the way that a nation battling for its opportunity, for its region, for its sway likewise will convey with it an inspiration and a resolve that makes them rise up to say, “We will ensure that the final plan of this is one in which we win and we don’t fall flat.”

This, in my opinion, is the combination of elements Ukraine must achieve. I have that ability. We are able to carry out that every single day. That is our goal each and every day we have the chance to achieve it.

Additionally, I am thankful for the cooperation of European nations that have stepped up. What’s more, I’m thankful to be working connected at the hip with Ukrainians who are considering their drawn out security something about an organization with the West but on the other hand is tied in with putting resources into their own center wellsprings of solidarity and developing those after some time.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: One final query regarding Ukraine. There are currently severe restrictions on how Ukraine can use American weapons to fire at Russia. Throughout the span of the conflict, you know, the U.S. position has changed on F-16s, ATACMS, and different weapons where, at first, you weren’t pushing them for Ukraine, in any case came around to that thought or concluded the timing was proper.

Is there any scenario in which the United States of America would tell Ukraine, “You can use U.S. weapons towards a much deeper part of Russia?” Or on the other hand is that thoroughly off the cards on account of possible acceleration?

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact, this question was posed to the President during the press conference that followed the NATO Summit. Furthermore, he basically stated: We evaluate the situation in accordance with what we know about Ukraine’s needs and what we can provide.

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

Therefore, I am unable to provide you with a definitive response to that query in the future. The President’s current position, I can tell you, is that circumstances changed. Russia really sent off another hostile straightforwardly across the boundary towards Kharkiv. Furthermore, presence of mind directed that Ukraine must have the option to fire back against that hostile. Thus, the President said, “OK, obviously, go for it.” Be that as it may, hitherto, his approach on lengthy reach strike into Russia has not changed.

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

So that’s what any proof that they’re decreasing? And in the event that this is not the case, at what point will the United States escalate its sanctions to the next level and take action that would have real repercussions, such as penalizing Chinese banks?

MR. SULLIVAN: When we approach them and say, “Here’s a bank that’s facilitating a transaction,” we have seen how they respond. We are concerned about that. We’ve seen how they react to that.

The overall picture, however, is not appealing. China continues to be a significant supplier to Russia’s war machine of items with dual uses. Additionally, dual-use items are somewhat abstract; it’s a decent Washington term. What it entails: The instruments and implements that go into weapons are the ones that kill Ukrainians and oppress Ukraine. Additionally, we believe that China ought to stop because it is fundamentally in violation of the standards of moral behavior expected of nation-states. When it comes to the conflict in Ukraine, China should not be on Russia’s side.

As a result, there are specific ways in which they respond. However, I believe that the larger picture is still moving in the wrong direction, as we have made it abundantly clear; we’ve been very open and straightforward about it. What’s more, we, obviously, say that straightforwardly to them in discourse also, thus do our European accomplices. Additionally, the NATO Summit made a strong public statement regarding this matter, which I would like to reiterate here.

In terms of the next steps, we have demonstrated over time that we are prepared to enact sanctions against specific organizations and individuals, including in China and other nations. Furthermore, that example will go on as we go ahead. While I am here, I do not have any announcements to make, but as the situation continues to develop in the coming weeks, I believe that additional sanctions will be implemented.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: However, you’ve been naming and disgracing them for a long while now, you know, most likely over a year, while possibly not more. If they haven’t changed course by now, aren’t you getting close to the point where you need to increase the sanctions? This time, you should target financial institutions or other places where it would really hurt Beijing, not just Chinese defense companies?

MR. SULLIVAN: To begin, Demetri, the President granted the Secretary of the Treasury, in collaboration with the rest of the administration, almost unprecedented authority to impose sanctions on Chinese and other international banks that facilitate these transactions for Russia’s war machine. That is now in place. We didn’t put that in place to let it sit there. We put that in place so that we can take action against a bank that falls under that sanctions regime.

Thus, once more, I don’t have a forecast today, however I will simply let you know that we have over the long haul assembled the devices to have the option to answer this sort of conduct, and we will answer this sort of conduct.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Let’s move on to China itself, sort of. I mean, up until this year, when President Biden met Xi Jinping in San Francisco, your allies and some partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific were quietly and privately concerned that the United States and China might be headed in the direction of conflict over Taiwan. In the first three years, how much did you worry about that possibility? And how do you currently evaluate that risk?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is to say, battle over Taiwan, battle across the Taiwan Waterway would be totally catastrophic for the world — for Taiwan, for China, for the US, for everybody.

Therefore, it has indeed caused me concern. Additionally, I believe that it must be a fundamental goal of American policy to prevent that from occurring; that we stop China and prevent China from truly sending off a forceful conflict against Taiwan to attempt to take the island.

Therefore, we have diligently worked over the past three years to make it clear that we do not want either side to unilaterally alter the status quo and that we want peace and stability to be maintained across the Taiwan Strait. We have also responded appropriately when we have observed China’s actions that undermine peace and stability, and we will continue to do so.

Therefore, this continues to be a top priority for U.S. policy. The upkeep of harmony and dependability across the Taiwan Waterway is fundamental for the support of harmony and strength on the planet.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: So, I mean, if you look at what you’ve done with alliances, you’ve had incredible success in the Indo-Pacific, convincing Europeans that the Indo-Pacific theater and the Euro-Atlantic theater are connected and getting allies like the Philippines, Australia, Japan, and so on to cooperate. Korea, South, and Japan.

Yet, when you take a gander at Chinese military resources in the western Pacific and in the theater where a contention over Taiwan will be battled, China way outperforms the U.S.

So my inquiry is — and this is somewhat returning to that old turn question, which I realize no one enjoys: Does the U.S. truly need to increase its tactical presence in the western Pacific and, you know, around the South China Ocean, and whatnot, just to support prevention, to stay away from that contention that, as you say, could be a fiasco for the world?

MR. SULLIVAN: We are not attempting to establish an Asian NATO, as you can see from our actions regarding our alliance system and infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific. However, we have established connections with our allies in a way that has not really been a feature of U.S. policy toward Asia in the past. It has been largely driven by bilateral alliances.

We want to strengthen not only our bilateral alliances but also our partnerships with our allies, the United States, Japan, and Korea; Philippines, Japan, and the USA; Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; Australia, Japan, and other nations There is a diplomatic component to that feature. Technology is a part of it. It involves the economy. What’s more, indeed, Demetri, it totally has a tactical capacity part.

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

Some of that is already apparent to you. In the years to come, you will observe more of that. Sincerely, I consider that to be one of the administration’s greatest successes, one on which we can continue to grow in the coming years.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: When it’s all said and done, clearly in the Indo-Pacific, Taiwan, North Korea, you have a few truly risky likely flashpoints. However, apparently at the present time, the most hazardous spot is the Subsequent Thomas Reef. The Sierra Madre, a dingy vessel from World War II, is sitting there. On that ship, you have Filipino troops stationed. Additionally, the Chinese are attempting to block resupply missions, sometimes successfully.

The Philippines is your most established peace agreement partner in the Indo-Pacific. Is there anything else the United States can do besides invoke that treaty, which no one has discussed thus far? Inside the organization, I hear certain individuals saying, “Really, the U.S. ought to begin giving maritime escorts to the Philippine inventory ships.” What are your thoughts on that? Is that excessive?

MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed on the place of the peace accord, we’d, first of all, disclosed clear that it applies to vessels in the South China Ocean. Therefore, China fully comprehends our perspective regarding the application of the mutual defense treaty in the event that that line is crossed. That is a crucial point. We consider it to be a point of stability. It is one we have supported freely and particularly built up straightforwardly to the PRC. And the Philippines are aware of that and appreciate it.

Second, we have endeavored to closely work with the Philippines on these decisions because they should take the lead: instructions to most successfully reprovision this boat so the mariners on board have the food and water and different arrangements they need to keep on satisfying their central goal. Furthermore, we will do what is fundamental with the Philippines to make sure that that occurs.

However, in terms of specific concepts of operations or the precise manner in which the United States would be involved, our preference is for the Philippines to maintain the status quo and perform these resupplies. We will continue to provide the Philippines with assistance and support as they take steps to guarantee that.

Also, I will be exceptionally wary about talking about hypotheticals would it be advisable for us we need to get to it, on the grounds that the main thing right currently is to see de-acceleration and to see the capacity of the Philippines to do resupplies. We will exert effort to achieve that because we believe it is doable.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: A Chinese spy balloon crossed the United States about a year and a half ago, a little bit north of here. Do you remember that?

MR. SULLIVAN: I’m sorry you had to point that out to me. (Laughter.) It resembled a month of inflatables.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: A month of inflatables. Additionally, I was eager to write a story about the FBI report on what you discovered when you salvaged the balloon fragments off the South Carolina coast. Why was no report released?

MR. SULLIVAN: First of all, the United States had a pretty good opportunity to take advantage of the balloon’s descent over water rather than land, which allowed us to examine the technology and capabilities of the balloon and learn about China’s activities and capabilities. Additionally, that is quite delicate.

Therefore, the White House did not direct this decision. However, the FBI and the intelligence community 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 necessary, but not to make a big deal of it in public.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: Was it more sensitive than you had anticipated when you saw it and looked over and analyzed everything?

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

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

I need to turn to India. I realize you’ve invested some colossal measure of energy in developing U.S. relations with India. India will not alter its relationship with Russia. We are aware of that. However, how concerned were you when Prime Minister Modi met with President Putin at the same time that President Biden was in Washington hosting NATO leaders?

MR. SULLIVAN: For me, the most important question is: Do we have any concrete proof that India is enhancing its technology and military ties with Russia? And from that visit, I didn’t see any tangible evidence that it was actually getting worse; that there were no deliverables in that area.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: You didn’t think the bear hug was important then, did you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed, Modi has a specific way, obviously, of hello world pioneers. In fact, I’ve seen it up close and personal.

Look, we would never want partners and friends from countries we care about to show up in Moscow and hug Putin. We, of course, do not. I won’t sit here and tell people anything different.

However, as far as our relationship with India, you know, we see tremendous open door on innovation, on financial matters, and in the statecraft and international relations of the more extensive Indo-Pacific district. As two sovereign nations with relationships to other nations, we want to deepen that relationship as equals. Additionally, India and Russia will not end their long-standing relationship.

However, we do believe that we want to maintain a thorough dialogue with India regarding the particulars of that relationship, its nature, and whether or not it changes over time. This is especially true, Demetri, given that Russia is getting closer to China and, as China’s junior partner, is not necessarily going to be a great and dependable friend to India in a future contingency or crisis. That is not something India needs to hear from Jake Sullivan, however it is a reality on the planet. As we engage in our strategic dialogue with India, we also take this into account.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: The Director of the CIA, Bill Burns, and the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, traveled to India about 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.

Even though it has been a year, have you received satisfactory explanations from India regarding what took place or did not take place?

MR. SULLIVAN: Therefore, first and foremost, we shared this information openly with the Congress and others. Also evidently, that was a well-thought-out strategy. With Bill and Avril, I sat down. I said we will go in the accompanying request and really converse with the Indians about what our assumptions are considering what we have realized, and we will manage until we see a result that we believe is palatable.

I don’t think discussing the nature of that conversation in public has much value. It is delicate. It is something we are managing. The story in my view has not yet been totally composed; We must continue to work through it. However, we have engaged India in productive discussions regarding this matter. Also, we have made extremely clear where we stand on it and what we might want to see. Because it is taking place behind closed doors, I believe it has been respectful and successful.

MR. SEVASTOPULO: We are close to running out of time. I would love to inquire about how you have managed to keep your boyish appearance despite working so hard. However, I won’t do that.

I will inquire as to whether they have an inquiry for you, and afterward we will end on that.

Who might want to — the man of honor around there on the left.

Audience Participant: Many thanks. Philip Davis (ph) is a Rising Leader who works for the Department of State.

I was wondering if you could briefly discuss expanding partnerships and alliances with South America and the African continent. Yesterday at a panel, we briefly discussed the need for increased government visits to South America and other similar activities. Therefore, I just wanted to know if you could talk about expanding those ties as well. I’m grateful.

MR. SULLIVAN: As a result, just taking a step back: first, great question. I appreciate it.

Two strategic facts emerge when considering the nature of geopolitics in the modern world: one, fierce rivalry with other powerful nations; two, monstrous difficulties that require the preparation of countless accomplices from across the world to meet them. Both of those things are accurate simultaneously. Additionally, there are times when those very competitors must collaborate on a solution to a problem; Take, for instance, China and climate change.

However, another significant aspect of the international system at the moment is that the rest of the world is communicating with the United States, China, Europe, and other nations as follows: What advantages do you offer to us? How do we fit into the overall scheme? Also, how could it be that we can cooperate in organization to address the necessities of our kin and to take care of these issues that burden all of us?

Thus, a focal component of the Biden organization’s procedure has been to reclassify the American and the Western incentive to the creating scene to meet the needs that they care about, in addition to our rundown of interests in those nations.

So, what are they interested in? They are concerned with infrastructure after infrastructure after infrastructure. Infrastructure for energy, digital, physical, and health

On that, we have been out of the game for a significant amount of time. Together with the G7, the President created the Partnership for Global Infrastructure. A lot of people kind of grinned and asked, “Where is this going?”

Last year, we met at the G7 summit in Italy. We have a lot of money in the bank and a lot of wins on the board. What’s more, we are adding to those wins year in, year out. What’s more, that is especially centered around Africa and the Americas.

Second, the mobilization of private capital, leveraged by political risk insurance or currency risk, or small amounts of public money that can simply bring capital in from the sidelines to do so much for technological advancement, climate change, and economic growth.

In addition, this week, as part of a program known as the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, I met with the foreign ministers of several countries in the Americas. It suggests yet another of those things. We now have a billion-dollar network of angel investors to help small business owners in the Americas realize their full potential. Furthermore, that is only one of various different drives we have in progress. These do not appear in the news. At the Aspen Strategy Forum, they are rarely brought up.

However, they are not only essential to the United States of America’s efforts to help escape that world but also to a safer and better world. Additionally, they are essential to geopolitical competition. Since our capacity not to regard different nations as intermediary milestones, but rather as accomplices, lays on our capacity to carry something to that organization.

I could go on for hours. The board before us on innovation — the US has a tremendous open door right now with regards to the organization of man-made brainpower and cutting edge innovation to assist with taking care of issues and to assist with giving different nations the devices they need to convey for their kin. A huge chance.

Furthermore, something that I need to place in a fitting for toward the end is for individuals in the crowd who work in money or who work on State house Slope. Since we want two things. We need to hear from Capitol Hill: Yes, we have a defense budget of $880 billion. We aren’t investing enough in this aspect of American statecraft, and that may not even be sufficient. What’s more, it is significantly to our greatest advantage.

Furthermore, we are not referring to hundreds of billions. We’re talking about relatively modest sums of money that have the potential to unlock enormous sums of money. Also, that is my message to the money local area.

It is absolutely necessary for our private sector to recognize the opportunity to provide high-quality, high-standard investment in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Global South, the developing world, and Latin America. Both their and our interests are greatly impacted by it. Additionally, there is a patriotic component to this.

I believe we were supposed to conclude some time ago, but I’m currently preaching. I am sorry. However, I truly feel energetically about this issue. I also appreciate the opportunity to discuss it with you. (Applause.)

MR. SEVASTOPULO: You just demonstrated your Irish heritage by going long.

However, I would appreciate it if everyone would join me in expressing gratitude to Jake Sullivan for sitting with us today. (Applause.) Jake, thank you.