Why is Trump lashing out at Zelenskyy?
52:13 Share

Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Dinghan in Beijing. Coming up: Trump warns Zelensky to quickly negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine China is going to welcome foreign investment in more sectors of the Chinese economy

and we will take a look at Germany's turbulent election race. South Africa is hosting a meeting of G20 foreign ministers minus the United States. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.

U.S. President Donald Trump has warned Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky that he better quickly negotiate an end to the war with Russia or risk not having a country to lead. Trump on Wednesday used a very extended social media post to lash out at President Zelensky.

The rhetoric from Donald Trump came amid an escalating back-and-forth between the two leaders. Zelensky responded by saying that Trump was falling into a disinformation trap. U.S. and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, agreeing to negotiate a settlement to an end to the war. Ukrainian and European officials, however, were not included.

So joining us now on the line is Dr. Alexey Muraviev, Associate Professor of National Security and Strategic Studies with Kerding University.

So thank you very much for joining us, Alexei. First of all, why do you think President Trump is now lashing out at President Zelensky? Do you see this as part of a bigger tactic, for example, to try to strike a deal with Russia? Well, I think it's a result of several considerations. First of all, we need to take into account the long history between Trump and Zelensky that goes back to the

to the first term of Trump's presidency when Zelensky didn't want to cooperate with Trump administration 1.0 in terms of investigating Joe Biden's family

business dealings in Ukraine which Trump wanted to look into as part of his political tactic, the Soviet Democrats. Secondly, he would remember that President Zelensky and his team for all the time were openly sidelining and backing the Democrats, including

during the last round of presidential elections in the United States, even to the point when during the U.S. presidential campaign, Kyiv was

accused by the Republicans of effectively openly sidelining and trying to lobby the interests of the Democrats. So I think there is a bit of a personal sentiment that Trump developed, a negative personal sentiment towards Zelensky. And that's what excused that particular collision over Zelensky's refusal to sign

they deal with the United States over the development of re-earth materials in Ukraine, provided him with an opportunity to simply, you know, open up and lash out. And certainly he wants to sort of

clear the ranks in terms of making Zelensky understand that he represents a country that is dependent on the United States. He cannot sit in the driver's seat. He cannot really dictate his conditions. He has to wait for the term to sort of come around and

and speak because Ukraine is entirely dependent on the West and certainly the United States in terms of military support, in terms of economic support, and elsewhere. And obviously Trump doesn't like when people openly challenge him and certainly challenge him in a very abrupt and confrontive way, the way how Zelensky spoke to him, because Zelensky spoke like that towards Putin, but I think he kind of confused

roles here thinking that he can speak to anyone he doesn't like. Yeah, so since you have already talked about this proposed agreement to give the U.S. access to Ukraine's rarest mineral, I guess on the Trump administration's side, it has already shown frustration with Zelensky for directing his ministers last week not to sign off to this proposed deal.

Let's talk more about Zelensky's response to Trump. What do you make of it? And for example, we have heard U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance talking about Zelensky's open criticism of Trump is not helping his cause. What is your take?

Look, I think for Zelensky, it's really difficult to adjust to the new reality where he cannot simply ask the U.S. president to sign a blank check and then the U.S. president would do like he did with Biden. And even to the point when Biden would apologize on camera to Zelensky that he cannot give him this, he cannot give him that. So I think Zelensky kind of is caught into this celebrity special treatment status that he was indulging over the past

three years. I think part of this escalation of rhetoric between Zelensky and Trump is also Zelensky is thinking about his own political future. And I think he's trying to negotiate some sort of a secure political future, personal future for himself. And I think there is also

an expectation in Ukraine as well as in Europe that Trump may be gone in three or four years. All they need to do is wither,

the current term, withstand the pressure, and maybe hoping that Trump may be impeached in the United States if he will press Zelenskyy too much, because clearly there is a very powerful pro-Ukrainian lobby that exists not only in the camp of the Democrats, but certainly there would be lots of pro-Ukraine sympathizers in the Republican Party. For now,

they haven't really rebelled against Trump but there's already been voices of dissent on on Ukraine issues so it would also be a matter of understanding whether Trump makes

may go too far in pushing Zelensky and trying to demonize Zelensky because for the past three years, the West was building up his profile as a national hero, as the savior of the free world against tyranny and oppression of Russia. And now Trump is trying to destroy all of that within the period of effectively 48 hours. So I think Zelensky is

He's thinking that maybe he can outplay this. He can effectively capitalize on the political capital he managed to build up over the past three years. And I think he's also counting that Europe somehow can come up with an alternative to the U.S. age, who Trump simply cut off the tab completely. And whether that's actually a smart strategy, assuming that combined Europe can

satisfy Ukraine requirements? It's a big question because Europe has demonstrated complete lack of capacity to match Russia's growing military might in terms of manufacturing capacity, in terms of supplying Ukraine with much necessary military equipment, weapons, munitions, etc. Even

the point concerning assembling sufficient intervention force. You know, the discussion that is currently taking place talks about about 30,000 people

military personnel, which is nothing given the size of the Ukrainian theater of war. And so it's certainly something that would not deter Russia. And we're talking about effectively a collective effort of over 20 European countries. If they cannot assemble the force that Zelensky wanted them to assemble, something between 100,000 to 200,000, I think his expectation that Europe can effectively replace the United States, well, it's a bit too optimistic.

So given what you have elaborated regarding the possible calculation on the mind of Zelensky, how would you comment on the possible impact on Kiev's morale to continue to fight this war with Russia ahead?

Because of the recent dramatic term in the U.S. policy, even though, like you said, there are indeed many domestic opposition to Trump's policy, but still Trump represents Washington, represents U.S. policy right now.

Look, it's a really good question, and I think it would certainly have immense negative impact on the morale of the Ukrainians, including the Ukrainian military, because the Ukrainian military, above all, recognizes that it's only the United States that can actually pull up its weight and give Ukraine what it needs.

If Trump is effectively turning his back on Ukraine and by that the back of making Pemberton turn its back on Ukraine, and I think that's sort of been partially reflected in the remarks of the new U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Well, that would certainly have a very negative impact on the morale. You know, the whole discussion about Ukraine's re-earth agreement is making many Ukrainians wonder what are they fighting for. You know, this is a form of reparations from Ukraine because there was an almost naive expectation that Ukraine's war effort will be funded

But the Western Ukraine would not have to return money, or at least the ones that were not given as part of land lease or a loan credit facility like the Europeans did. And now all of a sudden they're facing this massive bill, and that's before they can actually estimate how much it would cost them to rebuild the country.

And no one is talking about who's going to feed that bill because clearly the Russians are not even thinking or even considering any post-war reparations of any kind. And it was very interesting because within 24 hours after the dispute between Zelensky and Trump appeared, a number of interviews that were done on the streets of Kiev were

released, including with English translation. And the mood of people who were interviewed randomly is overwhelmingly pessimistic

pacifist they all kind of say that yes it's a bad deal for ukraine but they would rather see the end of hostilities some sort of suspension of hostilities than uh than you know endless fighting none of the interviews that i have heard including in ukrainian uh were kind of showing

great resilience and determination to keep on fighting. And that's a sharp contrast to similar sort of opinion polls that were filmed back in 2022, 2023, or even early 2024. So clearly there has been a change

of mood in the Ukrainian society because of the war fatigue, because people are really tired, they feel really depressed, they don't really see any changes on the battlefield in their favor. They're subjected to constant aerial attacks, aerial bombardment. It's really stressful. Their kids are not sleeping. Many of them live without electricity.

for hours, if not days, and they certainly want to get a sense of normality, conditional normality. I think they're prepared to accept any deal right now, which once again also contradicts with what President Zelensky is trying to communicate on behalf of his people.

So the final question before we let you go. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday that Moscow was ready to return to the negotiating table, but emphasized that building trust with the United States is essential for any progress. So what could be the calculation on the Russian side now? 30 seconds.

Look, in short, the Russians will not be preoccupied with Ukraine. They want to return to more or less normal, pragmatic relations with the United States, recognizing them as the superpower. So the conversation between the Russians and the Americans have already went beyond Ukraine and will continue to go beyond Ukraine. So Ukraine will be one of the discussion points rather than the focus of the conversation.

Thank you very much for joining us. Dr. Alexey Muravyov joining us from Curtin University. You are listening to World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. China has pledged to allow more foreign investment in sectors including telecommunications, healthcare and education. China's Ministry of Commerce and the National Development and Reform Commission have unveiled a 20-point action plan to stabilize the country's foreign investment in 2025.

Foreign companies will be encouraged to set up investment-oriented subsidiaries here in China and invest in listed Chinese companies. So joining us now on the line is Professor Liu Baocheng from the University of International Business and Economics. So thank you very much for joining us today, Professor Liu Baocheng. Why do you think this action plan is targeting sectors like telecom, healthcare, and education as the areas for further opening?

And actually, we know there were already some similar steps or measures announced last year in the telecom or in the healthcare sector. For example, the establishment of the wholly foreign-owned hospitals is already permitted in several major cities, actually.

Yes. When China is now shifting its gear for high quality development through the deployment of new productive forces with innovation, these identified three sectors, they can converge to give a further push for Chinese drive of modernization because these are really crucially important

in boosting human capacity via education, in bringing people together and low-cost communication,

and then to give a better health condition to improve a stronger labor force, and also to give a sense of entitlement for social stability and harmony. These areas used to be restricted because China thought our industries were not highly competitive enough

So, therefore, there were some protectionist measures to allow certain space and time for Chinese businesses to grow. Now, these industries are getting stronger to be able to play at par with the peers from the global investors. So, hence, we have the incremental opening up to such a stage.

And the other issue is that there is rising demand in the Chinese domestic market. For example, in education, the middle class or upper middle class families, they send more of the kids to study overseas because some of the

institutions in other countries can offer what they really want, simply because Chinese institutions are more disciplined and more hierarchical. And therefore, with the introduction of more of foreign education in pedagogical format and also in the

curriculum, and also in the expertise that can really enrich the Chinese educational content and also to provide further push for China to improve its educational system and for healthcare because that's

highly needed. Now we have, particularly in the coastal areas and central cities, we have so many people who are really lining up for treatment in hospitals. So this introduction of more foreign investment hospitals can really there to mitigate some of the tensions between the hospital treatment versus the patient need.

And the other, it also helps actually to attract foreign investment in multiple sectors because the experts in China, they may have insurance with identified hospitals overseas simply by transfer. The insurance and hospital treatment, that makes their life easier. So this does really help a great deal.

So in terms of geographic locations, how can China direct more foreign investment to its central, western and northeastern part of provinces, which we know is another stated goal in this action plan?

Well, this is a very interesting question because it's supposed to be that all investments, both foreign investment in China or the domestic investment in the coastal region are supposed to

to go and pursue low cost in any areas. So therefore, the Chinese western area or the central China, northeastern area, they are there to be able to receive the further dispersion of technology and manufacture businesses. But the reality is not as ideal.

The current advantage lies in connectivity is already very strong because in terms of roads, airports and railways. So the logistic cost is not really a huge consideration in the investment decisions into those regions. Much really lies in the local governance.

Therefore, to integrate the entire Chinese domestic marketplace with same level playing fields with other regions, that's important. Yes, you can also bargain with local government officials with regard to the conventional privileges like land concessions, like tax rebates, etc. The key is that how these regions can carve out

the right type of business environment in which law can be abide by and also the local talent will have to be trained to be able to handle the job that is being required. So when we talk about encouraging foreign businesses or foreign companies to set up investment-oriented subsidiaries in China and invest in listed Chinese companies,

I guess probably some of the very important issues here, what includes their foreign exchange management, for example, as well as their cross-border personnel or data flows, etc. So how do you think Chinese authorities can facilitate these things, can provide help on these things?

The easing is very steady, but also with caution for the restriction of the

cross-border capital flow because we identify, for example, some of the big areas like pilot zones, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and even Beijing, and not to mention the free port that is being opened for this year in Hainan Island for the easy convertibility and also easy transferability.

both in China and with other countries. And then more of the qualified foreign investors are also being introduced to participate in the Chinese financial marketplace.

So that's something that can encourage the cross-border flow. And the other is that we further enhance the stock connect and bond connect with foreign peers. So that can really address some of the concerns of those large capitals.

Now, we also now have streamlined the visa policies to have the free visa for foreign visitors into China, so they can not only deal with the transaction of exchange, but also they can also inspire by the new look that China is going on so that they can consider more seriously of the investment.

So, I think what is remained there is how we can really strike a fine balance between the data security and also foreign currency management versus the freer flow of

cross-border transmission of those currencies. Last year, we know we saw more foreign-invested businesses or enterprises getting registered here in China. But in the meantime,

there was also a slump in terms of China's actual use of foreign capital. What do you make of this phenomenon and the challenges it was pointing to? And ultimately, do you think some of the traditional or existing strength like China's market size, complete efficient supply chain system, etc., will continue to provide a solid foundation for international businesses to invest in China?

I think it's a paradox. On one hand, the foreign investors, they have high hope on Chinese marketplace with increasing buying power. Therefore, they would like to take a seat into China, hence they register more companies within China. However, on the other hand, they hold the money, some of them, is that they wait to see.

One is that whether Chinese policy is going to be stabilized and get more predictable. And the other is that they wanted to see that the Chinese RMB can be more stabilized. There's not much of the changes in the exchange rate.

The other interesting issue is that they invest more into the high-tech area, which may not require a large finance input from the very beginning because the investment will be spread out over a long term. So these are really the issues that the investors

very enthusiastic, but in the meantime, they also remain rather cautious and more rational. Your point's well taken. Professor Liu Baochuan joining us from the University of International Business and Economics. You're listening to World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. We'll be back after a short break.

You're back with World Today, I'm Dinghan in Beijing. One in five German voters remains undecided with only days until the final parliamentary elections. A YouGov poll is also showing that 7% of the undecided plan to make their final choice on the day of the voting, raising a prospect regarding a last-minute swing that could influence the final result.

German voters will be going to the polls on Sunday following the collapse of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's coalition government last year. The Social Democrats, led by Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, are facing strong competition from the Conservatives, the Greens, as well as the right-wing Alternative for Germany.

The election will be critical for the EU's biggest economy, influencing such issues as support for Ukraine, economic strategies, as well as migration. For more on this, my colleague Ge'an Na earlier spoke with Dr. George Zagopoulos with CIFE, a European research organization.

Professor, the recent poll highlights that 20% of potential voters are still undecided, with 7% planning to decide on Election Day. What factors do you believe are contributing to this high level of indecision among voters?

Well, to start with, it is important to mention that this significant number of German voters remains undecided and explore the factors behind that. And I believe the main reason is that they are not satisfied with the parties and their political agendas.

And that's why they haven't yet made their decision. So I believe that they will think more about the political agendas of the parties in the next days. And they can reach a decision either to go to the polls or to abstain. It will be a decision that will be reached at the last moment. But the general tendency reflects their dissatisfaction with the political agendas of parties.

Building on that, in the recent TV debate, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Friedrich Mayer presented their visions for Germany's future. So how do you assess their performances? Do you think this debate will influence the undecided voters?

Well, I would say that generally speaking, that type of TV debate do not play a very important role in shaping the attitude of voters and of undecided voters, because most of the citizens are well aware of the political agendas of the parties and of the personalities of the leaders.

So I would say that the TV debates can possibly play a helpful role, but they are not the factor to determine how voters and undecided voters will vote on the day of the election. So more or less, both Chancellor Soltz and the leader of the

CDU party, the Christian Democratic Party, have clear policies and their personalities are well known to the voters. So I would say that the debate itself will not be the one to decide the winner of the Sunday Bundestagswahl.

We know a central challenge for the next leader will be forming a stable coalition, likely the SPD or the Greens. Given the fragmented political landscape today, how difficult will it be for them to form a government that is both functional and capable of tackling Germany's urgent economic and social issues today?

Well, this is a great question, taking into account that the current government collapsed, which is something spectacular for German politics. So Germany is a country where that type of political turmoil does not frequently happen. And it happened under the current circumstances. So the mission of the next government

winner of the election that probably will be the Christian Democratic Party will be to form a government that will be stable and practically this means that the viable option will be a grand coalition between the Christian Democratic Party and the Social Democratic Party in order for Germany to

be well governed in the next four years. Obviously, a critical question remains up to what extent the Christian Democratic Party will collaborate or not collaborate with the Alternative for Germany party, the right-wing one, as there is an ongoing debate concerning the extent to which this Alternative for Germany party

can really play a role in domestic politics as it is happening at the local level in Germany. But I would not opt for such a scenario in the case of debating about the parties that will form the new German government. I will mainly focus on the possibility for a grand coalition between the Christian Democratic Party and the Social Democratic Party.

Professor, we know this is an important election, not only for Germany, but also for the European Union and the broader continent, including Ukraine. Germany's political direction will significantly influence the EU's future. So how do you anticipate the election outcome will affect Germany's role within the European Union?

Well, it is very important for the European Union to see Germany undertaking a leading role as it was happening in the years of Chancellor Angela Merkel and with the most characteristic examples to note the European debt crisis, the migration crisis and also Brexit. This didn't happen in the last four years, I would say. And there is much expectation

that the new stable German government will possibly play a role in order for the European Union and for Germany itself to refine their reorientation in the international arena. I would say obviously that a lot depends on decisions to be made in the United States, but still the European Union is an actor of the international system that needs to act autonomously

autonomously and with a stable German government, this can possibly happen. Of course, at the same time, developments in France are to be taken into account, but Germany remains the locomotive of the European economy and a stable German government will be very good news for Europe.

But Professor, the recent Munich Security Conference featured remarks from U.S. officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, have raised concerns about the future of transatlantic relations. How do you anticipate the next German government influencing the EU's strategic autonomy and its relationship with the United States?

Well, I would say that the evolution of American foreign and economic policy is in line with the pre-election agenda of President Donald Trump. And this is practically what Vice President Vance did in his speech in Munich. So this is not surprising for the European Union to see that the new American administration does not really value the EU role in the world.

So having said that, I would say that the European Union needs to make difficult decisions about its future. These decisions are not only related to Ukraine, they are related also to its economic power in a changing technological world. And obviously Germany, along with France, are the core where decisions are to be made. So a stable German government will play

a pivotal role in order for the European Union to respond to the challenges and to move away from the paralysis of the last years. Speaking of challenges, let's turn to Ukraine. With the US bypassing European allies and directly engaging with Russia over the Ukraine conflict, how do you foresee Germany's position on this matter? And how will the election result influence Germany's support

for Ukraine, especially in terms of military aid and diplomatic backing? Well, to start with, the United States and Russia are the main actors. So it is a very natural thing that they are talking to each other about Ukraine and about other issues. As the new Trump administration

is really envisaging possibly a modus vivendi with with Russia. So I would say that Germany and the European Union will follow suite. So the general trend in the European Union and in Germany will be to wait up to what extent the United States and Russia

will be able to reach an agreement. And if an agreement between the two will be reached, obviously the European Union will have to adjust to development. So I expect that the next German government that will be formed after the election, so not immediately after the elections, probably it will take some time in order for the government to be formed, will adjust to new development. So I wouldn't expect

expect that the European Union in the end and Germany will see the Ukraine crisis irrespective of how the agreement between Russia and the United States could look like. Dr. George Zagopoulos from CIFE, a France-based European research organization, talking with my colleague Ge'ana. Coming up, South Africa is hosting a meeting of G20 foreign ministers minus the United States. We'll be back.

You're listening to World Today, I'm Dinghan in Beijing. South Africa is hosting a G20 foreign ministers meeting in the city of Johannesburg, but without the presence of the United States.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is skipping the two-day gathering after criticizing South Africa's policies as anti-American, quote-unquote, deepening a diplomatic rift between the two sides. The top U.S. diplomat has snapped the meeting's agenda, Solidarity, Equality and Sustainability.

In the meantime, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Benson has also decided to skip a meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bankers in the city of Cape Town next week.

So joining us now on the line is Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. Thank you very much for joining us. So why do you think the United States under Trump is now determined to be a bad boy within the G20 framework this time around, at least?

Well, yeah, as you mentioned, that is not only about Trump himself, but also about the Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury and also Secretary of the State did not go to Johannesburg to attend the G20. But if you are looking back in the first term of Donald Trump, he attended all the three, I mean,

the offline meetings of the G20 in Osaka, in Hamburg, and also in Argentina, and also another one online. So I think that he was still trying to make some of these presidents of the United States in the G20 because he thought it's a very important platform. But this time, the situation has changed. I think that there may be also some other issues. Maybe in Manus, there are two issues. The first one is that

U.S. has said that it has some, you know, not agree with South Africa's act of land equations. It's a new act that published by the South African government. So they do not agree with that. So they decided not to support the G20 held by the South Africa government.

And the second maybe is also important because they do not agree with the idea that they should stand there together with other main major powers in the world and trying to discuss the issues. They want to be very special. I mean, they have published a lot of new policies to do with the tariffs. It's really a different time.

So do you think South Africa is justified to promote solidarity, equality and sustainability through this gathering of G20 foreign ministers? And what is Donald Trump and administration's core mentality behind snubbing this very agenda? Well, we know that G20 is always stick to those principles, like you mentioned, those principles, but it's not just the unique ones.

I think that in such a kind of uncertain world, there are a lot of uncertainty. So South Africa is still trying to stick to the principle of J20 and trying to unite all the major powers in the world to discuss some of the most important issues. Well, the United States is different. They want to just focus on their priorities. And I don't think that they agree that the world should be

more stable, not trying to give more uncertainty to the world because almost every day the White House is publishing some new policies trying to change or challenge the international rules. I don't think these are really the same to do with the G20 principle. So I believe that the US has its very special mind in attendance of this G20 summit.

What do you make of the potential damages to the U.S. reputation, for example, or to the soft power of the United States, the global soft power, and even beyond when the Trump administration is attempting to isolate the United States from multilateral platforms like G20 and the spirit regarding multilateralism?

Well, we know that G20 is an important platform. All the major powers are going there to discuss about the issues of this year. And if the United States did not attend this conference, I think that they may not be able to see something on the summit. I still believe that, you know, they are not just the leaders in these G20 meetings. Many of the U.S. government officials will still go there to attend the meetings.

They do not have, you know, as powerful as the leaders of these countries. And if they speak, people may think that what would you like to have? What would you regard G20 is? I think that people will believe that the United States want to be special. They want to be isolated.

As a soft power, I agree with you that soft power is very important in such a world when you are trying to ask others to take your ideas or opinions. But if you are not so convinced, maybe you cannot just make others believe that when they are going to do that, it will be good for them also, and they will not make some commitments also.

So I guess when we talk about the story today, it's very important to note here that G20 was established after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. And if we recall correctly,

the United States was exactly the source, the triggering party of that very global disaster at the time. Think about the subprime mortgage crisis in America, which was the trigger. So with that in mind, if we're talking about a scenario in which the U.S. is no longer involved in the G20 framework from now on,

What kind of risks would that bring if another similar global scale financial crisis came into being either from the U.S. home soil or elsewhere?

Well, I think that maybe it will be very dangerous because we will know that it's not only about the financial crisis. There will always be many other challenges like for the global health related problems or some kind of other virus. I don't think that's...

even the country of United States can handle that alone. So when the world is under threat or by some kind of, you know, the unknown factors, the people need to have some confidence. I think that the united response will be very important, like what we have been doing in the, you

know, the global financial crisis after the year of 2008, then President of the United States, Obama, just raised the idea that G20 should be formed, should be up-leveled to the leader levels. So when we are trying to deal with the situation, I do believe that other countries still think that it is very necessary for us to unite together.

and to make some response. But if you cannot do that together, maybe every country is just trying to think another way. Maybe there is a G20 minus one, maybe still work for because that world is changing very quickly. And with the development of the technology, we can handle a lot of issues that we cannot

we cannot handle before. So I still believe that the concept of cooperation and multilateralism is still the main principle of the world, and we're still trying to cooperate with other countries and states who want to do that as the same principles with us. Multilateralism versus unilateralism, the spirit of free trade versus trade protectionism,

Let's really stay confident and stay positive that ultimately the former kind of mentality and spirit will prevail over the latter. But thank you very much for joining us. That was Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.

Coming up, key NASA officials' departure are casting more uncertainty over US Moon program. Stay tuned. China has conducted another major asset reshuffle to overhaul its financial sector. The Ministry of Finance has transferred all of its controlling stakes in the group of financial companies to Central Huijin, a sovereign fund under the State Council.

What prompted the reshuffle? Is it just an asset transfer between different pockets of the central government? And to what extent will it help to overhaul the country's financial sector? Find out on this week's Chat Lounge on your favorite podcast platform and CGTN Radio.

You are listening to World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. NASA is reportedly losing four key senior officials who are close to its flagship Moon program. Jim Free is NASA's associate administrator who has been a central voice defending the agency's Artemis Moon program. He will retire effectively on this upcoming Saturday.

In the meantime, three key officials with the agency's Marshall Space Flight Center, which is the epicenter of the Moon program, had their retirements announced internally on this past Tuesday.

The leadership shakeup is adding uncertainty over NASA's space exploration trajectory as Elon Musk and U.S. President Donald Trump are pulling up the mission to Mars. So joining us now on the line is Dr. Zhang Fan, Associate Professor of Astronomy with Beijing Normal University. Thank you very much for joining us. Hello.

Now, of course, the bigger context here we are talking about is that the CEO of SpaceX, Elon Musk, is now overseeing a sweeping kind of review of NASA records as a special employee of the Trump administration, seeking cuts to, say, staff and a program, etc. Now, actually,

We know in his first presidential term, Donald Trump had actually set the moon as NASA's core space exploration target. So with that in mind, why do you think he and Elon Musk have, in some of the most recent months, touted potential missions to Mars as a possible alternative?

Right. So Elon Musk had always wanted to go to Mars and now he has the ears of Trump. So Trump is parroting. So the reason he wants to go to Mars is I think he mentioned that he thinks human consciousness is a miracle in the universe and he wants to preserve that. And Mars is far away enough. So if there's a nuclear war on Earth, you know, you will survive on Mars.

human lineage, humanity will survive while the moon may be too close. But I don't think the two are in his mind are competitors. You know, he will still need lunar program to to give him money to develop starship that will be used to go to Mars later. But he might want the lunar program to go a slightly different direction.

You know, the senior leaders got fired. They have stick with the space launch system, which is the old rocket, the relic from the space shuttle age, really. And also gave...

Blue Origin contract to compete with SpaceX, which is using a more traditional design. So this gives you the feel that this older generation of leadership, they were more conservative. They're looking at older solutions in competition with Musk's new radical new plan. So that's one. Another is obviously just cost-cutting, Trump being a bit

person surviving the assassination attempt probably think he's put in there by divine intervention to solve the government's debt issue. And leadership positions, they cost a lot of wages and they don't contribute as much as engineers to getting the project off the ground. So they get chops first. So, by the way, what do you think are some of the key differences or the relations even between missions to the moon and the missions to Mars?

Funny enough, Mars is actually more similar to the moon than it is similar to Earth. It's a planet, but it's really small and it doesn't have a magnetic field to protect it from the sun's harmful radiations. This is similar to the moon. Also, it doesn't have much of an atmosphere either. Once again, very similar to the moon. But being

Being further away, going there is a lot more difficult than going to the moon. Because, you know, one way is something like half a year. And all this time you're exposed to solar radiation. That will really give you cancer. Yeah. So Jeff Bezos, whose space...

A company, Blue Origin, has a multi-billion dollar contract with NASA to land humans on the moon, said in a media interview in January that the Trump administration should really stay on course with the moon program. So how much does this perceived support from Jeff Bezos and his Blue Origin company matter to the moon program here?

Right. So obviously he gets, I think it's $3.4 billion from NASA for the lunar program. So he obviously wants the program to continue. But whether it does so really, I think, depends on whether he and other sort of commercial private companies deliver on the technology promises they made.

So one thing that has been quite clear with the Artemis program is that they're seeing this as commercialization of the moon. So they're giving large contracts to SpaceX and Blue Origin for the human landing systems. And they're also sprinkling a whole lot of different small projects.

for small startup companies to deliver goods to the moon. For example, in March, Firefly, a small company, Lunar Lander, will be there. So, you know, really, whether, if they can, all these companies, or at least a subset of them, can deliver a viable sort of

technology to commercialize the moon, then yeah. Otherwise, I think this program might risk being fizzled out just gradually. So in China, plans are underway here to build a moon base at the lunar South Pole by the year 2035. Do you see any elements of competition between the U.S. and China regarding the mission to the moon? And do you think

Any intention to compete with China, strategically speaking, might play a role in terms of determining to what extent the Trump administration might continue to support NASA's Moon program.

Right. I think competition will play a little bit of a role, but it's not going to be a very extensive role. You know, it's a common joke in the scientific space communities that if you want to do something, get funding from the US, you just say that China is doing it and vice versa. But I don't think it's going to be like what propelled Apollo project.

Because you know the u.s. Has already been to the moon so the extra bragging right they can get by going there again It's very limited and it's the same for China. Somebody has already been there. So it's not about bragging rights with the u.s. As I said, they are mostly looking at this as a commercial opportunity and for China is really looking at the moon as a research base so the

So China is trying to build this International Lunar Research Station by 2035. You'll be the first base and then after 2035 there will be a second phase where it's substantially Expanded in scope so it becomes more like the the lowest orbit space station where you carry out just a whole bunch of scientific experiments China is looking to do do that on the moon and when they're finding this I

I didn't hear any mention of Artemis. So it's not because the US is doing something, but China is doing it. Your point is well taken. Dr. Zhang Fan, Associate Professor with Astronomy from Beijing Normal University. That's all the time for this edition of World Today. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, download our podcast by searching World Today. Bye for now.