welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot. a high-stakes summit in san francisco this week as president biden met with chinese president xi jinping in an effort to cool tensions with beijing as conflicts rage in ukraine and israel. the president hailed his four hour meeting with xi as productive even as china warned that re unification with taiwan is quote unstoppable. here's president biden on what the two discussed. >> i reiterated what i have said since i've become president and what every previous president of late has said, that we maintain the agreement that there is a one-china policy, and i'm not going to change that. that's not going to change, and so that's about the extent to which we discussed it. >> paul: let's bring in seth jones, senior vice president and director of the international security program at the center for strategic and international studies. welcome, seth. so what do you think was accomplished at the xi biden summit? >> well, paul, i do think it is important for the leaders to meet. i mean, we certainly saw that with president reagan and gorbachev at geneva. it is important for a whole range of things, reasons to get information across to the other side, to take stock, even to collect intelligence on what they think is important. at the same time, i really don't expect a lot to come out -- i mean, i think at the end of the day, the chinese and the u.s. and its allies are in a competitive adversarial position with the chinese. what the chinese did not say in their meeting including xi's meeting with u.s. business leaders, they said nothing about the raids that have taken place against u.s. companies, about the much more intrusive chinese security law, the activity of chinese intelligence services, both ministry of state security and the ministry of public security. so i think on some basic issues, we just aren't going to see a lot of progress, but again, i would go back to i think it is important to communicate, and i do think it is important to get back to at least some military military dialogue. >> paul: that was one of the outcomes. there was a restoration of military to military communication, deconflicting that sort of thing so you avoid accidents. that's basic stuff. we were doing that with the russians in the cold war and doing it now in syria. was there any indication from the chinese that they are going to change their attitudes, for example, military buildup in the south china sea islands, harassing philippine ships, for example, or any change in any at all in their posture towards taiwan? >> no. there's no indication that the chinese are going to stop any of that. in fact, what we see right now with the chinese defense industrial base is that one chinese shipyard is producing more than all seven of our shipyards combined. the chinese industrial base is on a wartime footing right now, and that even regarding taiwan, xi has said to u.s. leaders not only does china reserve the right to use force against taiwan, if taiwanese leaders inch towards independence, but he's also said he has the right to use force if they don't inch towards reunification with china more broadly, and the reality, i was just in taipei is that taiwanese opinion polls clearly show that those in taiwan believe increasingly that they are separate from china, different culture. they feel much more independent, so the opinion polls are going in the very opposite direction that beijing wants. >> paul: all right. we will see how this moves. let's turn to ukraine. you have also been following that very closely. it is kind of widely understood now that this war has settled into a stalemate on the eastern front. neither side having an advantage. the ukrainian -- the counteroffensive that it had in the summer seems to have failed. where are we? is that where we are now? is one or the other side have an advantage? >> paul, i was recently in europe to talk to senior ukrainian military officials, and they said their forward progress has essentially stopped right now. the russians have done a pretty good job in building fortif fortifications, trenches, also minefields and using fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters against ukrainian offensive operations. i think where we are right now is essentially a stalemate, but every indication right now that both u.s. and ukrainian and other allies including british officials have said is that the russians are intent on offensive operations, if not late 2023, then definitely 2024, so i think the russians are going to try to take advantage of these discussions in the u.s. about decreasing aid to go on offense sooner rather than later. >> paul: well, is there a danger here, if we don't get more u.s. and european military aid, advanced weapons, like long range missiles to ukraine, that that russian offensive could succeed, and ukraine could actually begin to lose this war? >> well, i think that's a possibility. certainly what ukrainian officials have suggested, you know, it is interesting that some of the u.s. want to bifurcate these various conflicts. they want to provide aid to just israel and not to ukraine. the reality is the russians, the iranians, the chinese, even the north koreans are all providing assistance to each other for their various conflicts. so they aren't making the same decisions that we are, and the worry in ukraine is that an authoritarian russia that invaded ukraine, if ukraine doesn't get electronic warfare, more air capabilities, counterbattery fire, and a few other things -- technology that they have asked for, that it is going to become increasingly hard for them to hold territory that they have done so far and give an advantage and the initiative to the russians that that would be a devastating -- that would have devastating implications across the globe, including to our allies in the pacific, who are watching this closely. >> paul: they are watching this very very carefully to see if we have the will to support our friends. thank you, seth jones. appreciate it. still ahead, a standing ovation for xi jinping as america's corporate titans dine with the communist dictator and pay big bucks to do it. our panel reacts next. get help reaching your goals with j.p. morgan wealth plan, a digital money coach in the chase mobile® app. use it to set and track your goals, big and small... :: and see how changes you make today... could help put them within reach. from your first big move to retiring poolside - and the other goals along the way. wealth plan can help get you there. ♪ j.p. morgan wealth management. (bridget) with thyroid eye disease i hid from the camera. and i wanted to hide from the world. for years, i thought my t.e.d. was beyond help... but then i asked my doctor about tepezza. (vo) tepezza is the only medicine that treats t.e.d. at the source not just the symptoms. in a clinical study more than 8 out of 10 patients taking tepezza had less eye bulging. tepezza is an infusion and may cause infusion reactions. tell your doctor right away if you experience high blood pressure, fast heartbeat, shortness of breath or muscle pain. before treatment, tell your doctor if you have diabetes, ibd, or are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant. tepezza may raise blood sugar and may worsen ibd. tepezza may cause severe hearing problems which may be permanent. (bridget) now, i'm ready to be seen again. (vo) visit mytepezza.com to find a ted eye specialist and to see bridget's before and after photos. >> paul: american business executives gave xi jinping a standing ovation at a dinner wednesday night where participants reportedly paid $2,000 a person to attend and 40,000 to sit at the table with the communist dictator. republican congressman mike gallagher who chairs the house select committee on china is demanding that the sponsors of the dinner disclose the names of those who bought tickets, calling the spending unconscionable. let's bring in our panel, wall street columnist dan henninger, kim strassel, and mary o'grady. mary, what do you think these ceos giving xi the standing ovation and showing up like this were thinking? why did they do it? >> paul, most people don't like to be used, but i think american ceos are in a special category. they're willing to be used because they want access to this huge market in china, and i think they felt that if they didn't stand up and be enthusiastic about xi, that someone in the corner would be taking names. and i actually have a feeling that it was two or three who stood up, and then there's always this kind of pressure to stand up because the group is starting to stand up. >> paul: if you're caught sitting -- >> someone is taking names, yeah. [laughter] >> you know, but xi was asking them for cooperation, and he didn't give them anything in return. you know, in june, they passed a law in china that said that they can -- on the grounds of espionage start raiding western companies, and they've been doing that, and he didn't offer any assurances that that wouldn't happen to them. in fact, you know his offer was sort of heads i win, tails you lose. but like i said, i think that they sort of went away feeling satisfied that they were in good standing with the regime, so that if there's an opportunity in china, they won't be shut out. >> paul: but this is not reading the room, but i don't mean the room with xi, i mean the room of the american public. the american conservatives are already increasingly skeptical of big business because of big tech and censorship and whatnot. this is not going to help them politically. >> no, not at all, and the irony is it is not going to help them politically in the u.s. and frankly it is not going to help them politically in china. you know, business tends to be fairly cynical and neutral about these things. they have tremendous capital investments in china. they are stranded there to some extent. many companies are trying to find other supply chains outside of china. it's not that easy. but to allow themselves to participate in what undoubtedly was a propaganda exercise for xi. i think the whole weekend to some extent. all the video of xi meeting with joe biden and his team, and then these ceos, that's all being broadcast back on to chinese television. >> paul: sure. >> elevating xi's stature at a time when china is itself under a lot of economic pressure. so it was really not a good look for the u.s. ceos, and they do have a big problem with american conservatives, and you think they would be a little more sensitive to that. >> paul: kim, let's turn to another issue this week, which is the tik-tok viral video that had a letter from osama bin laden from 20 years ago go viral and all kinds of so called influencers on tik-tok promoted it as if this was some kind of a revelation. it was really anti-american vitriol and yet they are endorsing this. tik-tok took it down after criticism. what do you make of this episode and what it says about that social media site? >> a lot of lawmakers are obviously focused on tik-tok and the criticism has ramped up again, already calls again to ban it. a lot of talk about china's ownership of it and what all this means. i think there's additional problem is that how do we have an entire generation or many in a generation of americans whether because of the rhetoric they have heard from political leaders or what they are learning in school now think it is cool and okay to laud a terrorist who killed americans in part because they are being swept up in palestinian fervor. there's both a cultural issue here. there's also the app issue, and you can bet that washington is now going to be doubly focused on this question, make more of a priority this question of what exactly they do, and if this app can continue to be allowed here in the u.s. >> paul: so the chinese ownership of tik-tok is real. and that has a lot of people in congress skeptical, but here's this figure that one poll showed this week. 14 percent of american adults get the bulk of their news from tik-tok. what does this say about its influence on discourse in this country that you can have that kind of anti-american information spread so easily? >> well, i mean, i think that it obviously is a big influence, and it's very dangerous, but, you know, paul, i kind of look at this and think that the question -- the real question is, how come our young people aren't taught to think more critically about things? this is a failure of our education system obviously. >> paul: we don't teach history anymore. >> i mean, in this world of technology, there will be a lot of ways for people to get -- back suckers for propaganda but you would like to think you have independent thinkers, young people being able to analyze things, and i think that's something we have lost. one thing i would say is there are a group of millennials who are very much against the bin laden tape, and those would be people who lost their parents in the world trade center in 2001. >> paul: all right. when we come back, mike johnson avoids a government shutdown, at least for now, and angers some conservatives along the way. our panel weighs in on his first big test as house speaker and the spending fight ahead. e sore throat medicated drops. uniquely formulated for rapid relief that lasts and lasts. that's my babyyy! -ow! get mucinex instasoothe. it's comeback season. this is a tempur-pedic mattress and it's designed to help make aches and pains a thing of the past by relieving pressure points and supporting your body in a way no other mattress can. for a limited time, save up to $500 on select tempur-pedic adjustable mattress sets. if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd rather be. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract, or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ >> paul: congress side stepped a government shutdown this week after the house and senate passed a continuing resolution that extends current spending levels into early next year. it was the first big test for house speaker mike johnson who like his predecessor kevin mccarthy had to rely on democratic votes to get the funding bill across the finish line, angering some conservatives in his party. here's johnson responding to those critics. >> i'm one of the arch conservatives. okay? i want to cut spending right now. i would like to put policy writers on this, but when you have a three vote majority, as we do, right now, we don't have the votes to be able to advance that. this allows us as conservatives to go into the fight on the next stages of this to talk about real border changes, policies at the border, to close the southern border to get it under control to talk about the oversight that's necessary, additional ukraine aid, to get israel done if they don't do it as we have begged them to do. >> paul: we're back with dan henninger and kim strassel and also joined by "wall street journal" editorial board member kyle peterson. so kim, did the house speaker make the right decision to go get democratic votes to avoid a shutdown? >> well, i mean, he made the right decision and the only decision, paul, because his party left him in that place. the government was shutting down; all right? a shutdown is not going to accomplish these spending reductions that the conservatives in the party say that they want so much. the best shot they have at that is to pass a cr, give themselves more time to work on these appropriations bills, go into conference with senate and leverage some of their priorities. so he did what he had to do. he went to democratic votes. he was fortunate. i don't think that faction on the right wants to go through another speaker drama, so they didn't threaten him at least not yet, threaten to depose him, but they are already now taking actions on the floor to block some of those ongoing appropriations bills out of anger, and i think it really shows the challenge he has that when you just have three or four people that can throw a [inaudible] into the works and not going to get on board with the team strategy, we could still have a lot more drama in the weeks ahead. >> paul: i don't get the logic for these critics here. i mean, they're basically blocking an appropriations bill this week from getting a vote on the floor. that's the only way to get -- to get any policy changes is to pass the bill, stay united, go in a conference with the senate, and then hash it out and get -- eke out a policy or victory or two. otherwise, you are going to be rolled by the senate on one of these giant spending bills again, and then they are going to erupt again and say it is somebody else's fault. no, it is your fault. >> the somebody else is republicans engaging in these exercises, and the question has always been -- i mean, they could go through a normal process like that, push it forward to january or february and make these arguments about spending -- they are legitimate arguments about spending. >> paul: sure. >> but the goals are simply completely hopeless, and the thing that really bothers me about this, paul, is they have such a slim majority in the house. there is no possible way that you are going to achieve any of their goals unless you increase the republican majority in the house. you need more voters. you need to win more elections next year. and doing this puts it in the mind of the public that the republicans are unreliable, inconsistent, don't know what they want. there's a lot of this internal fighting, and so the party is divided, and i think in some of these swing districts, like in new york state, pennsylvania, california, voters may not give republicans the majority they need to get these things done. >> paul: let's pivot to presidential politics, kyle. tim scott left the race this week. where are his votes go? nikki haley, donald trump, or who else? >> i expect many of them would go to haley because he pitched himself with optimistic message. it's always morning in tim scott's america. i have a hard time thinking that those are voters that will gravitate towards donald trump or ron desantis who is a little bit more aggressive on the culture wars. i think the question is whether haley can succeed in putting together pieces of republican coalition who do not want to see donald trump nominated a second term or at the very least who think donald trump would lose if nominated to joe biden, and to see whether she can make that a big enough coalition that she can really get ahead in head-to-head competition with donald trump going she's number two in new hampshire and south carolina to donald trump. i think we will wait to see whether adding some of those tim scott voters gets her to number two in iowa which would be a feat, i think. it would make it a one-two race. >> paul: kim, one of the interesting things to me is the way trump is reacting here to haley's rise. he calls her a name, but -- bird brain, i think, but he hasn't attacked her. he's focusing on desantis. do you think that's because he thinks desantis is the biggest threat and once haley emerges if she does as a one-on-one competitor, he will find her easy to defeat? >> well, i think that her time is coming, in terms of donald trump's attacks on her. but you're right, paul, at the moment, he seems to see desantis as the bigger threat, so he's training all of his fire on him there, especially given the numbers in iowa where desantis is still in second place next to trump, and that's obviously the first big contest because i think trump's big concern here is that if he doesn't have a good showing in