Transcription
Victor, why is Xi Jinping so friendly with Kim Jong-un of North Korea and Vladimir Putin of Russia? I mean, if he is this great amazing world leader as Trump has described him, surely he should be keeping a different kind of company.
And this is the only purpose. China's national defense is not a measure up against any of our neighboring countries. It is a measuring up against only one country that is the United States. And the only purpose of measuring up against the United States is to make sure that the United States will love peace and will no longer be uh happy to move to the gun and shoot from the hip especially not visav China. That's the only purpose.
Victor Gao, you've been quite rude about America and its uh intentions in the trade war, but Donald Trump has been nothing but polite about your leader, Xi Jinping. He called him a a strong leader, a great leader. Why doesn't Xi Jinping return the compliment? Why don't you return the compliment?
I always have the highest respect for the American people and for the ingenuity and the creativity of the United States as a nation. Now, sometimes I'm critical of President Trump and his trade policies. That doesn't mean that Victor Gao has any lack of respect for the American people. Now, for President Trump, while I applaud the fact that he used the nice words, present words about China against for President Xi Jinping, we always need to watch whatever he walks and we cannot purely depend on whatever he talks. Therefore, this is the time to see whether he talks the talk and walks the walk. And this will be the litmus test. I think and my concern is that the greatest predictability in the world of today is the unpredictability of the United States and the greatest certainty in the world of today is the uncertainty of the United States.
And, unfortunately, President Trump, there are many things that Americans admire about China. Uh, you know, I myself was traveling through China for quite a long time in 1981 when it was a very, very different country. So, I've seen the extraordinary transformation of China. It is, it's, it's mind-blowing. Literally, it's extraordinary. I wonder what you, Victor Gao, admire about America.
Well, I have the highest admiration you can think about for the American people, for their creativity, resourcefulness, as well as for their great natural endowment and very uh unmatched uh geopolitical positions uh in the northern part of the United States. And I think whatever China is doing is trying its best to make the United States love peace more rather than try to resort to war to solve any problem between any other uh with any other country. This is why China never looks down upon the United States and China always wants to engage with the United States as an equal partner and we truly believe that if China and the United States can set their sights of the same major issue in the world there will be nothing in this world which cannot be resolved for our mutual benefit as well as for the benefit of mankind as a whole.
Jujier, I mean, Victor loves to talk about, you know, China and peace and how it's a peaceloving country that wants to spread peace uh around the world, but when you look at China's military buildup, which is also extraordinary, uh, especially its naval buildup in the region, what is, what story does that tell you?
Well, there's a plenty of stories in here. I think for, for the first layer is really that sense of China's obsession regarding uh neighboring countries because this is the country that shares a border with 14 different countries and obviously having a secure border and to couple to be paired with the modern army, and I think that's absolutely necessary. Now, secondly, I think also given Chinese foreign policies' obsession towards sovereignty and territorial integrity. So when it comes to issues related to Taiwan and when it comes to issues related to South China Sea, of course, China will show a very assertive stance um on that. So I think it's just the, the way how the Chinese foreign policy and also the military conduct is operated as it is today and of course, I think for many, and particularly among the G7 countries, uh, when they look at this and they would consider this probably brings more fear than admiration regarding China's military capability.
What do you think? What do you think China wants to do with its military capability? What's the end goal here?
Well, the end goal is really about deterrence, to win a war without fighting. I mean, if we come back to a month ago, was that gigantic military parade to be put forward at Tiananmen Square, and one thing has been quite clear is that the message has been clear there, and that China does have the capability um when it comes to the military competition with the United States or with the others. However, whether China decided to use it, that's an entirely different matter.
Victor Gao, is, is that this parade of military hardware that we saw in Beijing, you know, is the language that comes out of your leader, Xi Jinping, is that about respect? Is it about fear? Is it about domination in the region? What's it about?
Well, the victory parade on September the 3rd has only one purpose. That is to defend China's sovereignty and national uh territorial uh integrity and to make the United States and the American people love peace more than what they used to. And this is the only purpose. China's national defense is not a measure up against any of our neighboring countries. It is a measuring up against only one country that is the United States. And the only purpose of measuring up against the United States is to make sure that the United States will love peace and will no longer be uh happy to move to the gun and shoot from the hip, especially not visav China. That's the only purpose.
But hang on a minute, Victor. It is Chinese components that allow you, you know, the Russians to fire missiles and drones into Ukraine. China could stop the war in Ukraine today if Xi Jinping picked up the phone to Vladimir Putin and said, you know, we can be the best of friends, but you cannot wage this war. He has refused to do that. He has met Vladimir Putin together with the North Korean leader at that parade on the 3rd of September. I mean, these are not exactly peaceloving signals, are they?
You are wrong, with due respect. If China pro-supplies weapons to the uh Russian side, Russia would have won the war overnight. For example, China has this monster lethal anti-drone weapon and system which can shoot down any or any group of drones on mass. And this is exactly what the Russians will need because drones launched and used by the Ukrainians have done havoc against Russia, not only inside the Ukraine but deep inside Russia. This is ample proof to show that China does not supply weapons to either Russia or Ukraine, and if China supplies weapons to either side, that side receiving China's weapons will win the war immediately.
Uh, J, is any of that right?
Well, I think regarding the uh Russia, Ukraine and China, and that's an entire separate question, but what we can really judge from the meeting what we had today, I think President Trump even mentioned that he was much hoping that they can work together with China to resolve this uh war in Ukraine uh related matters. So let's see whether the D2, the framework which we just had this morning will be able to solve the Ukraine-Russia issue for now. But I think at the moment we have seen a lot of words being floating around and very little deeds that how much, firstly, Washington gets involved and secondly, how much Beijing would like to get involved on European security architecture.
But, but if China was not providing the kind of non-overtly non-military aid uh to Russia that it's been providing, you know, for the last two years or two and a half years of the war. Do you think that Russia would not be able to conduct this war as it has done so far?
Well, I think weapons is one thing, but another element in here is this regular trade between China and Russia and also the, the volumes of trade and that Beijing has purchased from Russia that somehow give the lifeline to running the economy. So, it's less about the weapons, but I think it's more about the trading relationship that Beijing has offered to Russia right now. That seems to be putting under the scope being further examined.
Victor, why is Xi Jinping so friendly with Kim Jong-un of North Korea and Vladimir Putin of Russia? I mean, if he is this great amazing world leader as Trump has described him, surely he should be keeping a different kind of company.
Well, for the record, China and DPRK have the only blood treaty between China and any other country. That means after the end of the Korean War, China and DPRK have signed a mutual defense treaty whereby each side will need to come to the other side's defense if the other side is attacked. Now, this treaty is automatically renewable after 20 years and it has never been terminated. That means between China and DPRK, we do have this time-honored mutual defense treaty. And China only has this defense treaty with DPRK, not with any other country. That means if any country wants to second-guess China's determination to come to DPRK's aid if DPRK is attacked militarily, then please read the national and the mutual defense treaty between China and DPRK. Now, between China and Russia, we engage in normal trade with each other. China will never allow any other country to disapprove or to disqualify China from engaging with any other country, including Russia, in normal trade relations unless it is being blocked by the United Nations Security Council. That is the only litmus test. China does not allow any sanction imposed by any other country except the sanctions blessed by the United Nations Security Council.
I want to talk about nuclear weapons and nuclear testing a little bit, if I may. Uh, Donald Trump actually, to many people's surprise, also announced today on his way back to Washington that he wants to resume nuclear testing immediately after having not done so for 33 years. Now, what does Beijing make of that statement?
Well, Beijing's policy about nuclear weapons and use of nuclear weapons and non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon countries or nuclear weapon-free zones uh is well-recorded. China will never use nuclear weapons against any other country ahead of time and China will never allow any other country which uses nuclear weapons against China to survive China's nuclear retaliation. That means China has built up MAD capabilities to deter any country in the world which may be mad enough to strike China with nuclear weapons. China will never do this kind of thing against any other country. But China will never allow that nuclear power to strike China first to survive China's brutal, ruthless nuclear retaliation. I hope President Trump will get that message and I hope the United States will never ponder the possibility of you using nuclear weapons against China because that will trigger immediate nuclear annihilation of the United States by the Chinese retaliation.
I mean, the Americans have not even dropped the slightest hint that they might want to target anyone with nuclear weapons, let alone China. Uh, so, so why are you so robust in your language?
No, it's not. My language is robust. It is China's position is as robust as you can expect. China will not attack any country first with nuclear weapons. But China will never allow any nuclear power which strikes China first with nuclear weapons to survive China's nuclear retaliation, period. That's robustness you may be calling for.
And just briefly on this, do you think that China will now also resume testing of nuclear weapons?
China has never stopped nuclear testing. China's nuclear stockpile is a fraction of that of the United States or Russia. But China's position is very clear. China will have enough nuclear warheads after the first nuclear strike by any nuclear power to make sure that that nuclear power which strikes China first will be annihilated by nuclear weapons. That is a period.
I think, yeah, I just like to add on on this element in here. So while we're talking about DPRK, while we're talking about China, and we also talk about Russia and Moscow earlier, I think one of the biggest worries Beijing would have right now at this moment is that a close tie between the DPRK and Russia does not serve China's interests very well. Now, having both surrounded by nuclear neighbors, and China's policy obviously is do not root root out the first by not using the nuclear. However, I think this thing needs to be said that what Russia and DPRK has been doing is not something at Beijing's best interest at the moment.
Okay, let's move on to, I want to get back to the, you know, the trade relationship between America and China, which is, you know, at the heart of the meeting that we had today. And, and I just wonder, Victor Gao, whether you think at the end of the day, you know, America and China can find some kind of mutual understanding where they both, you know, produce high-end goods when it comes to, you know, artificial intelligence, you know, they both produce electric vehicles, you know, they help each other on things like climate change, or do you think that the competition between these two great powers is so intense that actually, whatever anyone says, we are slowly moving towards some kind of confrontation?
No, I don't think so. I think by the end of the day, I truly believe in the inevitability of peace between China and the United States. I'm a complete opposer to the so-called destined for war scenario between China and the United States. Allow me to use soybean as an example. China has the biggest demand for soybean. And if the United States wants to wage a tariff war against China, then China will not buy a single uh item of soybean to the great detriment of the soybean growers in the United States. That means the United States should give up any idea of weaponizing tariffs against China because otherwise China will retaliate. China will be ready to see complete winding down to zero of the two-way trading goods if the United States wants to weaponize tariffs. That is the bottom line. China wants to engage with the United States. China wants to buy as much soybean as the American farmers can grow, and China is the only biggest market for soybean, amazingly. Therefore, President Trump should really think about the well-being of the American farmers before he even thinks about the crazy idea of launching a tariff war against China. We should go back to square one. That means China and the United States don't weaponize tariffs against each other. That is the better way between China and the United States.
Right? But what about Chinese factories? You have a manufacturing bubble. You know, you, after your property bubble burst, you put all your assets and all your investment into manufacturing. You want to become, you know, the world's, you know, single most important manufacturing power, and you're brilliant at it, but you need to sell the stuff that you make, and you can't sell all of it to China or even to Southeast Asia or to Europe. You're going to have to sell a lot of it to America. So, that is where the Americans have a stranglehold over you, don't they? Because if you don't sell the stuff, your factories go bust, and your workers get very unhappy.
With due respect, I completely disagree with you, sir. Why? Because the United States has been calling for decoupling for at least seven or eight years. Do you think China will not prepare for that extreme situation? China is fully prepared if the United States really wants to decouple from China. Meaning there will be no more trade between China and the United States. If that's what the United States wants to see, and China will be fully prepared. Do you know what we are talking about now? We are talking about landing persons on the moon ahead of any other country. We are talking about fusing technology to generate power without limit and bring the benefits to the 8 billion people in the world. We are talking about deep space, deep sea. We are talking about everything to be enabled by AI. We are not not talking about producing toys or garments or textiles or shoes anymore. We are talking really about the cutting-edge technology, the breakthroughs that mankind can think about that will be the stabilizing factor for the Chinese economic growth. I don't think there is any other country in the world which is so focused on what we call new qualitative productivity, which is a tongue twister, but which means you generate productivity through technological breakthroughs, that's what China is focused upon now.
All right, do you buy, do you buy what Victor is selling?
Uh, just to put this, the, the, not the tongue twister, but the new terms on the, the economic terms that Beijing has defined, putting it aside. I think what we have seen so far, really, again, judging from the readouts we have from both ends today, is actually the United States has promised to invest it more in China, and that is actually not reducing the dependency, but actually increasing the dependency between China and the United States. And if we're talking about market behavior, and what the United States has been asking, asking China to purchase extra soybeans, that is actually a market distortion, that is not actually something that follows the market economy. So whether China is willing to do that, that is up to Beijing to decide. On the one hand, then I think on the other hand, Beijing has already learned from the sense of unpredictability and also the, um, the economic behavior that was set up by the Trump administration. So what Beijing has decided is not to put all the eggs in one basket. I think equally, the United States is playing on a similar um strategy in here, do not overly depend on China, and likewise, I think the European Union does the same thing. So I think what we have right now is every single country, major economies in the world, it all becomes so inward-looking, and it has led into the situation where we are today. So it's less of the dependency, but it's more about setting the fortress and how can I protect oneself.
Okay, just finally, I want to spend a minute or two talking about Taiwan. First, you, Jujier. Taiwan, as far as I can gather, didn't come up at all in the meeting. Certainly, there was nothing in the official readout about Taiwan. Does that surprise you?
Uh, no, it's not surprising at all. And I think really judging from the, the results and also judging from the mood with the United States, that obviously Taiwan is a major, major issue uh between the two, and then that's probably the fundamental agreement between Beijing and the United States back to 1979 when they formally established diplomatic relations. So I think any major changes regarding Taiwan, firstly, that would require to have some at least foundational level of trust between Beijing and Washington. At the moment, I do not see that trust actually exists. And secondly, there are China hawks around the Trump administration who are deliberately looking for uh tenders and status towards Taiwan. So I think um, really for Donald Trump himself, he's not really willing to make a very bold move for that.
Victor Gao, final question to you. Do you think if you, if your government were to encroach on Taiwan militarily, either through a naval blockade or an invasion, and we know that Xi Jinping is on record for saying that he wants Taiwan to be reunified, as he put it, with the motherland at some stage before he leaves office. Do you think that President Trump, should he be in the White House at the time, will sit by and do nothing, or will he intervene and use American power to stop you?
First of all, let's be honest. The real status of the relations across the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is the unfinished civil war back in 1949. So, if China really moves to achieve unification or liberation of Taiwan, it is the resurrection of the unfinished civil war. Do you really think the United States or President Trump or anyone else in the White House wants to be involved in a civil war between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait? That's number one. I'm completely ruling that option out on the table. Secondly, the status of Taiwan being part of China is carved in stone in the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. No one can change that. Whether you want to try that or not, that's another matter. But you can never change the final verdict of history in the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. Meaning China is completely on the right side of history. If we want to have another civil war to finish the unfinished civil war back in 1949, that's China's internal matter. Taiwan will be liberated by peaceful means preferably, or by a resurrected civil war if it is necessary. We want liberated.
Victor G. They don't want to be liberated. They quite like living in their own country. The majority of tiny Chinese do not want to be part of the People's Republic of China.
Well, the people in the Confederation do not want to join the Union. But President Lincoln decided otherwise. President Lincoln decided to bring them back to the Union with force if it is necessary. And this is exactly what the Union did against the Confederation. And that is the only logical conclusion for the relations between the federation on the one side and the confederation on the other side. The Confederation was defeated, and now they are very much part of the Union, and the United States after the civil war has been one nation under God, indivisible. That is the truth for the United States. It will be the truth for China too. One day when China is reunited, you will see China will never be divisible, and no one can ever dare to split any part of China away from China.
What we have just seen was an interview from the UK's Channel 4 broadcast on October 31st, 2025. The host's interview style with its loaded questions is in some ways a microcosm of a certain British mindset today. This is the United Kingdom now. A nation striving to find its place in a post-imperial world, yet seemingly unwilling to relinquish its conviction of playing a special role in global affairs. When one considers Britain's historical legacy, what often comes to mind is the series of complex and intractable geopolitical problems it left behind upon its withdrawal from former colonies. For instance, the roots of the ongoing China-India border dispute can be traced back to the so-called McMahon Line, unilaterally drawn by British colonialists and never recognized by any successive Chinese government. Even more tragic was the 1947 partition of India. At that time, a hastily drawn Radcliffe Line, created with almost no field surveys, sliced Punjab and Bengal in two, brutally tearing apart millions of families. This not only triggered one of the largest and most violent migrations in human history, but also sowed the seeds for the still unresolved Kashmir issue. Today, while the UK's global influence is no longer what it once was, its media often plays a unique role of its own. It has a habit of viewing the outside world, especially rising powers, through an adversarial lens and a preconceived moral framework. This formulaic reporting often oversimplifies complex geopolitical issues and can intensify divisions between different camps. It leaves one to wonder, as the world order undergoes profound changes, how should a former empire truly reckon with its own history and find its genuine place in the world today? What's your take? Feel free to leave a comment below. If you found this program valuable, please like, comment, share, and subscribe to our channel. Thank you for watching.