The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - A Week After The Peace Deal, Will It Hold?

Episode Date: October 20, 2025

It's been a week since Donald Trump heralded a peace deal for the ages in the Middle East. It hasn't all gone easy in the seven days since, so the question is -- can the deal hold? Dr Janice Stein of the Munk School at the University of Toronto is with us for her regular Monday chat as we discuss that plus Ukraine and China. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's been a week since the peace deal in the Middle East. Can that deal last? It's Monday. Dr. Janice Stein is here, and she's coming right up. It's Monday. game seven day now about those blue jays no kidding it has been a strange series for the

American League championship series jays get home advantage lose the both the first two games at home and they take two in Seattle lose one come home take one we're tied three three going to the seven there's nothing like a game seven in any sport look forward to its winner take all loser going home we'll see what happens later today but

the Jays have definitely given us something to cheer about at a time when sometimes it's hard to look around see anything to cheer about okay Monday mornings what do we do we give you the question of the week

back to a kind of normal schedule now in terms of the question I'll give it to you here in a second and you'll have to Wednesday 6 p.m. Eastern to give your answer

75 words or fewer yes we like that phrase you send it to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com include your name and the location you're writing from.

Those are all kind of conditions, as you know. All right, here's the question. And it relates in some ways to what we'll be talking about with Dr. Stein in a few moments' time, so I would suggest you listen carefully to what she has to say. Doesn't necessarily mean your answer is in there, but it's the background and the context that you need to think through what you want to say.

So it's the big question. about the Middle East. Here it is. Do you think we're about to see everlasting peace in the Middle East? Something we've been unable to see all our lives.

Will we see it this time? Don't get fooled by the first few days of the ceasefire. But think it through. Do you think we're about to see everlasting peace in the Middle East.

And once again, it's not a yes or no. Well, it is a yes or no answer, but we want more than a yes or no. We want your reasoning as to why you think it is or it isn't. Something that will set up everlasting peace in the Middle East. All right? There's your question for this week. As I said, that is topic number one. of a number of topics we'll deal with Dr. Stein from the Monk School to University of Toronto

on her regular Monday appearances. So let's get right at it. Here we go, Dr. Janice Stein. On starting off, we'll deal with this Middle East question and get the context and background we need to come up with the answer to this week's question. Here we go. Janice, before we get to the latest developments over the last 24, 48 hours, I want a general assessment from you. Is this where you thought we'd be on the Middle East situation, on the Gaza situation, a week ago when they struck the deal?

Is this where you thought we'd be a week later? Yes, more or less, Peter. And why is that every ceasefire often takes weeks to consolidate itself. What I expected was both sides were going to test. You push, you probe. There's always incidents after a ceasefire. The first week is usually full of them, and the mediators scramble. So what we're seeing unfold on the ground is pretty much what you would expect to. especially when the lines are not obvious.

They're not obvious natural barriers. There's just drawn up the middle, which is what we've got in this case. So I'm not surprised. So in the last 24 hours or so, we've seen Hamas, according to Israel, begin some fighting. We've seen Israel respond by airstrikes. What I want to try to understand is, Hamas, by the way, denies that it did what Israel says it did, but let's assume for a minute that they did something.

Is Hamas testing Israel, or is it testing others who want to run things in Gaza? It's all of those, Peter. So just to go to what we know about that incident, then it always takes a few days for the smoke to clear a little bit. But what we do know, there was a firefight in which Hamas militants, in one case, came out of a tunnel and attacked a carrier,

you know, an armed vehicle that Israel had on the ground, injured some soldiers. That's beyond dispute. What, there's two different stories from here in. Israel says deliberate attack, challenge to ceasefire, Hamas issued a very interesting statement several hours later, which they said, no, this is behind your line. We've lost contact with these millions. We don't control them anymore. It's a conceivable story, frankly, because their commanded control is breaking

down. Let me just say right out, Peter, I don't believe. that this incident or others like it over the next several days will blow up the ceasefire. I think the bigger forces that are pushing are strong enough to withstand this kind of pressure.

Principle among them, Trump owns this. This is his ceasefire. He's made clear he will decide what a violation is and he's sending his team to the region. They're coming back. Well, what does Trump mean

when he says, if Hamas doesn't stop killing, he'll go in and kill them. What's he talking about? Is he actually going to send American troops? Not a chance. I mean, I think there is zero chance that they will send American troops. Some of this is honestly bluster because, and here there is, I think, really messy planning that could have been much better than it is. when you declare a ceasefire of this kind, and you know that the line is unclear, you know, it's a yellow, I don't know if our listeners have seen the map, but there's three lines that run down, starting from the middle of Gaza, which is where Israeli forces are now deployed.

There's two further ones that they're going to pull back to if and when. So the if and ones are big. First of all, when Hamas disarms, which they are committed to do under the agreement and which their spokesperson has already said, well, we can't do that until we have somebody to hand over the arms too. And who is that somebody? That's the International Stabilization Force, which Wiccoff and Krishna are. are working very hard on to stand up.

And so we are where we are now with this line down the middle of Gaza, Israel controls 53% of Gaza territory. We're there until an international stabilization force comes in. People say all the time, well, who in their right mind? We go into Gaza and have their troops shot at by Hamas. I think we should flip the question, Peter, and say, if these forces, as I understand they are, are all Arab and Muslim forces, and there's a strong argument to restrict the force to Arab and Muslim majority countries, which Hamas leader in their right mind would order his forces to shoot a fellow Muslims? So I think the picture is less bleak than people are generally feeling right now.

It's a very slow process, and it's very frustrating to Palestinians in Gaza that Israel still controls 53% of the territory. But I think the ceasefire is more resilient than people are saying. Okay. How about this issue about other factions that are... are trying to replace Hamas in the basic governing of day-to-day life in Gaza. Some suggest that these other factions are being supported by Israel to get at Hamas, right? Yep. So is that happening from what you can tell?

So, you know, when Hamas speaks about it, they call them collaborators. and in that well-known video that circulated with Palestinian men kneeling where Hamas militants assassinated them, and shot them, frankly, killed them. They said these are collaborators. Well, who are they? We actually know quite a bit because these are long-standing families, Palestinian families, who've been in Gaza, frankly,

since 1949 and have put down deep roots in some of the cities in Gaza and these are their descendants. They have long hated Hamas. They view them as interlopers and they've resisted every time they've had the opportunity.

So to take away any, you know, agency from these families is really to miss the texture that exists inside Gaza, and the divisions that exist within the Palestinian community, just like they exist within any community. Now, Israel knows well who these families are, and yes, they have been giving them money and weapons.

There's no question about it, and this is not the first time Israel has tried to do this. They did it in Lebanon and failed miserably, but I think it's important to recognize that But there is Palestinian opposition, especially in part of the neighborhoods in Gaza City, which is real, which is based on years and years. And here's what's different this time. And that's such a trap when you say that when I say that because, you know, I'm setting myself up here to be wrong because you could argue it's never different. But here's what's different this time. There is half of Gaza that will be behind Israel's lines where some of these families will be protected

and will have the opportunity to consolidate their authority. And I think that's Hamas's biggest fears. And when we get that stabilization force in and a governor, and apparently there's an agreement. There were 15 Palestinian names on a list that is circulating widely as the so-called technocratic committee that will take over responsibility in Gaza. They're going to do that now in that 53% regardless of what happens on the other side of the line. So there will be an alternative.

Damas. Can they be branded by Palestinians as collaborators? There's always an issue of legitimacy, but the ground is going to shift, Peter. On the big picture, what could go wrong here? I mean, I hate to sound negative, but we are so used to things going wrong in the Middle East. Of course, I mean, look, after the attack yesterday, where two soldiers were injured apparently quite severely. Wall-to-wall demand inside Israel from the opposition all the way to the left, Yerkelan, who heads probably the remnants of the old left in Israel, all of them call for major response to the attack.

They attach no credibility. that there's a breakdown in command and control. Plus, there is a lot of anger inside Israel about the failure to return the bodies of the dead hostages, as Hamas did commit to do in the agreement. That's an issue that unites people across the spectrum. Nathaniel could find himself pushed very hard by domestic political opinion. He's hanging by a threat.

His government is hanging. by a thread. It could crack. He knows elections could be sooner rather than later. So you have to treat this as a pre-election period inside Israel.

And that's a power, those are powerful forces that could act against the ceasefire. My sense is there's a restraint here, though, Peter, which is Trump. He finally weighed in and took ownership and, you know, there are many critics of the deal

and the way the deal was done and the personalist diplomacy. I was actually pleased to see him own it because that means he's going to do some work to keep it going because he doesn't want the embarrassment of seeing this blow up. You know, a couple of weeks ago, when it started to appear that he was weighing in very directly

and things looked hopeful that there could be a deal, you said you kind of took issue with me because you said if this happens you know he deserves it he deserves the peace prize now as we said you know a couple of months ago he was never going to be in the running for this year's peace prize because it was well past the deadline of whatever was January or February of earlier this year to get a nomination in but he clearly is going to be on the list next year for what he's achieved here. But, you know, and I've had letters from listeners saying, you know, Janice was right. I hate Trump, but, you know, she was right.

He has, he deserves something here. You still feel that way? Yep. You know, it's interesting because he was nominated for the prize, I think, by Pakistan, well before the deadline. But there was no record, Peter, until a week before the announcement. And those decisions are made. Months ago.

Yeah. And you plan for it and everything. So the real test will come next year. Now, harder for him now, because it all blows up, not now. I don't believe now, but it could two or three or four months from now. If it blows up, there goes his prize. So I think the incentives are all along for him to keep working at this. This is his only real success.

You know, and unlike other parts of the world, you know, in Ukraine, he has to deal with a very, with a Russia that still has, in his words, cards to play. That's not true right now in the Middle East. He and his family have the links. to the Emirates and to the Saudis. He's got the relationships with Qatar. Netanyo has no choice. And we saw that.

We saw that. When Trump finally weighed in, it's obvious to everybody, the Netanyahu. I think of it. And so this is a part of the world still in which the United States exercises real leverage and there's no other big power.

There's not China. There's no Russia that can get in his way. If he wants that Nobel Peace Prize, he has to work at this for the next several months and firm it up. You know, you mentioned his family connections into that part of the world. And clearly, Jared Kushner is a major part of that. And suddenly we saw him at the table in this last month or so. what is the clout that Jared Kushner has

other than the business connections which are substantial for that part of the world but is that what it's all about? Look, I don't want to underestimate those business connections. Whitkoff kids are involved. Steve Whitkoff's kids and Donald Trump Jr. is involved and we're talking billions of dollars of investments.

The best known is cryptocurrency, but there's more. And this, you know, this takes American politics to a place to a level that we frankly never seen before. It's all personal. There's a

merger of personal financial gain that is just huge here for this president and this family. Jared Kushner, in the last Trump administration took the opportunity and after Trump was defeated

went to Saudi Arabia and got again billions of dollars of investment for hedge fund that he had set up and it was clear that it was the expectation that Donald Trump would run again and that was persuasive to investors who

control the assets of a country like Saudi Arabia. So Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., Steve Whitkoff's children, all have enormous financial stakes that depend on preserving these relationships in the Gulf. And it works, you know, and why am I saying it in a tone of voice that is probably less outraged than I might otherwise be. Because in this case, it aligns with stopping the killing, frankly. That's what got Donald Trump as invested as he is.

And on balance, that, you know, doing that, stopping the fighting and the killing is more important. You remember 30, 40 years ago, we used to say, it's all about oil. Oil is what makes things happen on these international situations, both good and bad. It almost feels like we're saying here now it's all about money. Yes.

The difference being that the monopoly, you know, that the weight of the oil-producing state, and they're largely in the Gulf, if you think back to the 70s, was so enormous because, you know, the Japanese economy, all of the European Union dependent on oil supplies from the Middle East, not the United States, even then, but they were wholly dependent, and the United States was very worried about the economic damage

that it would do to their allies. The money is no longer about what happens to the economy. of the European Union or Japan or any other ally. It's about how much money would Donald Trump Jr. lose if the Gulf States lose confidence in Donald Trump's capacity to shut this down and to create a stable environment where their business relationships can prosper. So different. It's personal.

It's personal to the Trump and Whitcomb. family. But is this any way to run a world? No. It's not a way to run a world at all, but it is. And we've seen it coming now for four or five years. And in this case, as I said, it aligned with a determination to impose a ceasefire and keep that ceasefire going. And, you know, when I said last when we were talking,

does Donald Trump deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? The mutual, I'm going to use these words, you know, trauma inside for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank on the one hand, and in Israel, on the other hand, for what they have gone through. It's so severe. I think people who don't go to the region don't really understand. then, Peter, there was no way of stopping this war. That's why it was so brutal, so violent.

The gloves were off. There were no limits on either side, frankly. The only person that could stop this war was the President of the United States. Joe Biden wasn't willing to exercise the muscle to do that. And Trump did it. You know, what's ironic about this, of course, is that when Biden was president, Trump was firing from the outside benches,

so to speak, at Biden and claiming that everything he was doing or not doing in Ukraine was for the Biden family fortune. Yes, right. And so here we are now looking. Your suggestion that a lot of what's going on here is to protect the Trump family fortune. I mean, I think, you know, it goes beyond a suggestion.

I was trying to be kind. Yeah. I mean, you know, Hunter Biden, there's an amateur compared to what we're seeing. There's no question. And by the way, I would go beyond a little bit, Peter, and say what we're seeing with Bitcoin investments. and the monetization, there are almost any serious watcher of financial markets

is very worried about a bubble here in the same way that we saw securitized mortgages. This is an, you know, these are being sold through a variety of mechanisms to individual investors like you and me. You can buy

a share in a Bitcoin ETF that some of these funds you know exchange traded fund that some of these investors are selling and the prices are escalating and there's almost no regulation and there's no transparency here so this is not only

the personal family business of these two families it is spreading because people are watching what these two families are doing and thinking oh there's money to be made here and there could be significant damage down the road when this bubble burst significant. You know, it's interesting because in the last week

there's been a lot of talk about bubbles, certainly that one, but also an AI bubble. Yep. That there's so much stuff happening on the AI front and so many new companies and companies coming out of nowhere with new angles on AI that the fear of a bubble on the AI stocks is really growing. Yeah.

It's really, and you know, again, just for a minute to look at the NASPAC, if you take out those big AI companies and you, there's no real growth in the stock market, and there's not much growth in the U.S. economy. It's all being fueled by these big seven in the just a layer underneath who are investing in AI. But at least that stock markets regulated. Right.

What we're talking about in the stable coin business and other Bitcoin businesses, which is where the Trump family has made its big bet. There's very little regulation. and there's very little transparency. But the president, and he's come out and set this again and again again, I will decide whether there's violation. I will decide. Okay, once you have the president of the United States saying that,

you're in a different game, frankly, than you were before. It's not what Netanyahu want. I mean, that's a whole other subject. What a huge miscalculation by Netanyahu to push it this far, that he's seated all control now. to somebody in the White House. I don't know about you, Peter, but I wouldn't bet on the everlasting friendship,

but Donald Trump. Exactly. Well, you know, you've got to look long and hard to find where those everlasting relationships and friendships that Donald Trump has are because many of them go sour. Not all of them, but many of them go sour. Many of them.

Okay. We're going to take our break. We'll come back. I want a brief hit on Ukraine and then we'll talk about China first. second. But we'll do all that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday version of the bridge. That means Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School, the University of Toronto. You're listening on Sirius XM,

Channel 167, Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform. Okay, Janice, we saw yet another trip to Washington. by Zelensky from Ukraine to meet with Donald Trump in the White House just the other day. I mean, he's made a lot of those trips this year. Yeah. He came hoping to leave with missiles.

He came and ended up leaving with Donald Trump saying, you've got to make a deal with Putin. Yeah. He wants Tomahawk missiles. That's what he came. And until that call, that Vladimir Putin initiated with Donald Trump. So that tells you how concerned that Putin was

that he was going to get those Tomahawk missiles. And what are they? You know, Peter, they are long-range missiles that can reach deep, deep, deep into Russia. And here we're seeing, and, you know, the Trump people would hate what I'm going to say right now. But here we're seeing an absolute reprise of the playbook in the Biden administration that Vladimir Zelensky would come and ask for one level up weapons.

And the Biden people would tell him every time, oh, no, there's a real risk of escalation. We can't do it. They would wait a bit of it. They would test the waters. They would see. They would try to, you know, gauge whether Putin really would escalate. And then they rolled the dice, they gave him weapons, and Putin didn't escalate. And that was, that's the story of the Biden administration from 22 to 24.

Very much the same playbook here, Putin called and hinted as he had several times before, that this would be such a severe escalation that, you know, there are ultimate weapons that we have. It's a dog whistle to nuclear weapons. Trump heard all that, back down. But this is still, I think this is a better position for Zelensky. Then he was, certainly at the beginning of the administration. And you can see it in the tone. Trump did not do to Zelensky this time, what he did originally at his first meeting.

in the White House, who was cordially, it was civil. There was a certain understanding. Second of all, Trump does not want another meeting with Vladimir Putin in Budapest, where he comes away with nothing, as he did in Alaska. So there has to be something, and that's why the language out of the White House, the meeting is scheduled tentatively. In fact, there's no date for it. and I think that Putin will have to put something on the table this time

because the reaction to that first summit in Anchorage when there was nothing was so humiliating to the president that I suspect there will be something and I think what Zelensky is hoping for I think he knew he wasn't going to get the missiles And by the way, those missiles would not be a game changer in the war. Ukraine already has the capacity to attack, and they are the energy infrastructure inside Russia. And they've damaged something like 20, 25 percent of refineries and energy infrastructure inside Russia.

that's not small, they've already got that capacity to do it with weapons that they manufacture themselves. So to expect the Tomahawks, what brings Vladimir Putin to his knees, I don't, and that's one no more likely than Abrams tanks or anything else in this long history. But what I think may well happen is the attacks by Russia against Ukraine energy infrastructure have been brutal and especially as the winter approaches to try to take out the electricity grid. It's conceivable that it's conceivable that Putin may slow down on that as he gets ready or tries to get that meeting in Budapest now. It's Putin who wants that meeting, not Trump this time. That's a better position for Zelensky than before Anchorage.

But one assumes that if Zelensky is going to sign anything at any point, it's going to take more than stop hitting our grid. I mean, do we have any evidence yet of what Zelensky is willing to give up? I mean, Crimea, one assumes, is gone. That's just not on the table anymore. He knows that. He knows that. So it becomes a question of how much territory,

he's willing to give up on the other side. Right. Yeah. So look again, on the ground, since that Anchorage meeting, Ukrainies have pushed back. They actually stopped the Russian offensive. The two or three towns that were crucial that the Russians were going after because it would have opened up for them, you know,

access to the to the, to the, the plane to go much, because of easier territory, much more deeply into Ukraine. They were not able to seize. Ukraine, Ukrainian forces have moved back and deployed in front of them, and there is a complete stalemate along that front line now, Peter. So Putin himself knows that he's not, he was not able to break through. after that 2025 offensive

that he was hoping just as Ukraine can't break through. This is World War I. Frankly, these are, they are locked in a stalemate. You can't break it through the air.

You really can't. Neither country will crumble because you attack their infrastructure. And we see no sign whatsoever from Vladimir Putin that he's moderated any of his demands and their

his demands are extensive it's a total Ukrainian withdrawal from all of the territory even in the Donbass even those territories that Russia doesn't occupy

so that's not going to happen so we're back is there a ceasefire possible here it's so unsatisfying to people people hate ceasefire without fundamental resolutions to problems.

Because they say, well, it's a pause. They'll just go back to war. But sometimes a ceasefire is the very best you can get at the moment. I guess that's what they've got in Korea, right? I mean, isn't it still a ceasefire? Yes. It's still a ceasefire. 75 years later, whatever it is.

It's still a ceasefire. And, you know, there's a group of, you know, wonky me's. that have written that actually the Korean ceasefire is the best model. That was after a year of fighting, stalemated fighting, two years

before the ceasefire agreement was finally firmed up. It took from 51 to 53. We're still living without ceasefire, but no major war has broken out between North Korea and South Korea. When you look at the killing ground,

that the Ukrainian war, that Russia's war on Ukraine has become, you know, over a million, wounded, injured, killed, over a million and growing, and way over a million, I think, because neither side fully reveals, a ceasefire is not a terrible outcome right now. Okay, we've got a couple of minutes left, and I want to talk about China. for a second because kind of, you know, there's so much has happened in the last week, right? And then it's been dominated by the Middle East story. But beneath it, you've got, you know, Trump saying he's imposing 100% tariffs on China. China's saying this is going to cost you big time. And if we referred back to what we were saying earlier, everything about, everything's about money. this is about money.

And who's holding the hot hand here? Well, so this is actually, I think, Peter, of the three issues we just talked, two issues, now this one that we talked about, it's the biggest one. This is fundamental. And we're getting a glimpse into what the future looks like.

It was absolutely fascinating. Let me take one minute just to go back and say Donald Trump started in his first term where he imposed restrictions on U.S. technology that could be sold to Huawei, a company that Canadians remember all too well. And these are what I call secondary restrictions. It's not only that the United States couldn't sell, but hey, Canada, if any of your companies sell technology to Huawei, we're going to sanction those companies as well.

So the United States was exercising its global muscle through its networks and these incredibly complex supply chains, which are actually the economic networks that keep all of our economy going. Almost no country makes everything they need to manufacture an advanced product in their own company. they've got supply chains where other companies located elsewhere supply a critical component. And Canada is no exception to that, by the way. When he did this, and Biden doubled down, the Biden team doubled down on the Trump strategy, which few of them will admit, but it's accurate. And they could do it because they thought they were in a stronger position than China, and China could not retaliate.

Well, China is in a very strong position on rare earths, critical minerals. You can't manufacture ships. Chinese rare earths are a critical part in the global supply chain for advanced ships. Oh, by the way, just for Canadian snow, 90% of amoxicillin, an antibiotic that anybody who has as a kid who has an ear infection uses, 90% of those antibiotics have a Chinese component to talk about how integrated these supply chains are. Well, China stepped up in April and used the same strategy as the United States. They will sanction any company that uses a rare earth that China has experienced.

that China has exported, that that sells them to the United States, and it worked. Donald Trump back down. And therefore, we haven't, you know, to me it's an enormous story. China rolled the United States in April and Trump back down. Well, that's a message to everyone. If you have a critical component that the United States needs in its supply chains, that's an incredible asset. Well, Donald Trump started again recently and broadened the rules against exporting chips to Chinese companies, and Xi Jinping pounced. they've been preparing these restrictions for a long time.

They process 87% of the critical minerals that the world needs. They did it against Japan. We should have noticed the playbook. They did it against Japan in 2010. And if they follow through, the United States economy will suffer. The European Union's economy will suffer. all the events the economies will suffer.

And so you're actually seeing economic warfare where all of us are implicated. And the question really is to try to go too far. To trying to go too far. Where do we fit in on this? This is the last question because we... Well, you know, we are integrated. We a lot of Canadians don't know,

but we do something called pocket chips. That's not wrapping them up in paper. That's a fairly advanced piece of the manufacturing process where we hatch into the silicon surface of the chip. And the two places this is really done in Quebec, the problem is to go back on just across the border. It's interesting in upstate New York. So we're totally vulnerable in the same way that everybody else is.

If this gets out of control and the Europeans are horrified, the Japanese are horrified as well as the United States, because it could bring the advanced manufacturing, what could this do? It could bring the advanced manufacturing of chips. to a halt the most advanced chips, well, that AI bubble that you talked about, you need those chips, you can't run any of these large language models without those chips, advanced jet fighters. I could go on and on about, you know, who needs these chips.

And the Chinese have an advantage here. I think why it will take. take the United States and its allies, a decade to mine critical chips, to process them, it's really dirty, it pollutes. The Chinese are willing to do it. A lot of countries are not. It'll take a decade. China is not a decade behind in the manufacturing of advanced ships. It planned better than the United States did. My hunch, Donald Trump will back down. The Chinese have the cards.

And that to me, it's an incredible story, Peter, because it's a glimpse since the next five, eight years of who's got the better hand in running a global economy. But they need each other, but they each need each other. Right. You know, this has been fascinating. and you've taught me a lot in the last couple of minutes here that I was not aware of. I thought it was all about, I thought it was all about canola versus EVs for Canada and China.

And there's no doubt there's a lot of importance in that negotiation as well. However, it ends up turning out. But what you're talking about sounds like it has enormous impact. Enormous, enormous. And you know, it is interesting because how does this affect? I don't think it's a secret that the Kearney government is looking for ways that it can improve its relationships with China. At the same time, it's trying to manage this intense trade negotiation with the United States. No easy feat in the current climate with tensions at the highest level we've ever seen between the United States and China.

That's a total order. Now, Donald Trump did put on true social. Don't worry, China. It will be all right. Okay. Well, most of us still all right seven days for now when we meet again. Thanks for this, Chancellor, as you always do. You've given us lots to think about and, you know, a real head full of stuff there.

Thanks for this. We'll talk again next Monday. See you next week. Dr. Janice Stein from the University of Toronto, the Munk School. And as I said, there's a head full of stuff there. There's no doubt about it. I mean, we went long this week with Dr. Stein about 40, I don't know, almost 45 minutes. But a lot of ground to cover.

And the whole first half of it gives you things to think about in terms of answers. the question of the week, which is, do you see everlasting peace as a result of the peace deal in the Middle East? So look for that. All the rules and regulations about the weekly question are at the top of this program, but basically it's you've got to have your answers in by 6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, 75 words or fewer. And make sure you include your name

and the location you're writing from and you send it to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. All right, that's going to do it for this day. Tomorrow, it is the reporter's notebook turn for the Tuesday broadcast, so that means Rob Russo and Altheiraj. We'll talk about the latest kind of things that are swirling around Ottawa, and there are stuff.

There's stuff, as we say. And it's, you know, it's somewhere between stuff and gossip. But there's a lot of stuff out there being talked about. And so we're going to try and sort out what's real and what isn't. That's tomorrow. Wednesday, I haven't sorted out in my head yet. So we'll figure that out before Wednesday. Thursday is, of course, a question of the week, plus the random ranter and Friday

is good talk. with Bruce Anderson and Sean Telly Bear. That's going to do it for today. Thanks so much for listening. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Take care. And we'll see you in less than 24 hours.