Speaker 1: Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
Speaker 1: of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
Speaker 1: day regret. Their best selling out of Office gummies were
Speaker 1: designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, booster your mood,
Speaker 1: and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
Speaker 1: can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a
Speaker 1: gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest
Speaker 1: fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC
Speaker 1: beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a
Speaker 1: glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I
Speaker 1: prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that
Speaker 1: believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes
Speaker 1: in delicious HEMP derived THHC and CBD products, all designed
Speaker 1: to boost your mood and simply help you unwine so
Speaker 1: if you struggle to switch off at night, Soul also
Speaker 1: has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply
Speaker 1: help you get a better night's sleep, including their top
Speaker 1: selling Sleepy Gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep.
Speaker 1: So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to
Speaker 1: Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
Speaker 1: percent off your entire order, So go to getsold dot
Speaker 1: Com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code.
Speaker 1: That's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off. Well.
Speaker 1: Joining me now is one of the journalists that I
Speaker 1: always learned something from when I read her stuff in
Speaker 1: The Atlantic and Apple Bomb, and in many ways I
Speaker 1: know what I turned to her for and what I
Speaker 1: read her most thoroughly about is whenever she's writing about
Speaker 1: Central and Eastern European and what's going on in that
Speaker 1: part of the world specifically. I want to timestamp this.
Speaker 1: We are talking midday, Wednesday, November nineteenth, and it's important
Speaker 1: to timestamp this because earlier this morning some news leak
Speaker 1: that there is a supposed potential piece deal of soort
Speaker 1: it's being circulated that was, I guess negotiated by the
Speaker 1: President's personal on voice Steve Whitcoff, with an envoy of
Speaker 1: the Russians, and it is now they are supposedly shopping
Speaker 1: around to see if, in the words of the Axios reporting,
Speaker 1: essentially can they jam the Ukrainians to take this deal.
Speaker 1: Doesn't seem as if many people know about this deal,
Speaker 1: and if you does have the whiff for what it's
Speaker 1: worth of a leak in order to try to turn
Speaker 1: the page on stories perhaps this administration doesn't like on
Speaker 1: the front page. That's the cynic in me. But I'm
Speaker 1: not going to make an apple bomb day with that
Speaker 1: aspect of this story. And is also author of a
Speaker 1: brand new book, Autocracy inc. Right, it's it's new ish.
Speaker 2: It came out in paperback this year, and it has
Speaker 2: a new paper.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, well, and I obviously want to talk about that,
Speaker 1: But let's start with I mean, look, at any given day,
Speaker 1: I would have asked you this, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: will I don't feel like the war between Russian and
Speaker 1: Ukraine is going to end even if there's a cease fire.
Speaker 1: But I guess that's the question. Are we going to
Speaker 1: have a period this year where there is no exchange
Speaker 1: of fire between the Russians and the Ukrainians.
Speaker 2: So to be clear right now on this, you've just
Speaker 2: time stamped the date one of the things that's been
Speaker 2: true about this war since the very very beginning is
Speaker 2: still true, and that is that Vladimir Putin has never
Speaker 2: said that he will give up his original war aims,
Speaker 2: and his original war aims remain the conquest or the
Speaker 2: occupation or the or just the control of all of
Speaker 2: Ukraine and the prevention of the existence of a Ukrainian
Speaker 2: government that would have sovereignty and would be able to
Speaker 2: make trade deals with the European Union, and would be
Speaker 2: able to run the country the way they want to
Speaker 2: run it. And so he's never said that, he's never
Speaker 2: acknowledged the legitimous legitimacy of President Zelenski. He's never said
Speaker 2: he wants to stop fighting. He's never acknowledged, as I said,
Speaker 2: the right of Ukrainians to be Ukrainians. He's continued to
Speaker 2: talk about them as if they were part of Russia.
Speaker 2: And it seems to me that until he gives that up,
Speaker 2: and it's and he would have to do it publicly,
Speaker 2: I mean, he would have to do it in some
Speaker 2: way where he says it, then it's very hard to
Speaker 2: see how we get to the end of the war.
Speaker 2: The war will end when the Russians stop fighting and
Speaker 2: when they say we're not going to conquer all of Ukraine,
Speaker 2: and then we can talk about ceasefires, or we can
Speaker 2: talk about where the border's going to be, and there
Speaker 2: are a lot of other things we could negotiate, but
Speaker 2: we haven't reached that moment. What worries me about the
Speaker 2: news that we heard today, aside from the piece of
Speaker 2: it that you mentioned that it feels a little bit
Speaker 2: like let's haul an old story out of the you know,
Speaker 2: out of the trash can and put it back on
Speaker 2: the front pages so that we can distract from stuff
Speaker 2: we don't want to talk about. I mean, what what
Speaker 2: worries me is the is the persistence of the two
Speaker 2: main negotiators, and this is Steve Witkoff and Kirol Dimitriev.
Speaker 2: We know who Witkof is. He's Trump's friend from the
Speaker 2: real estate agency, was involved in Gaza. He's someone who
Speaker 2: doesn't know Russia and Ukraine very well. He doesn't know
Speaker 2: any of the history or any of the people.
Speaker 1: Well, I think he would now dispute that.
Speaker 2: He might he might now dispute it. But his main
Speaker 2: interlocutor has been Kirol Dimitriev, who's the head important because
Speaker 2: he's the head of the Russian Sovereign Wealth Fund, and
Speaker 2: a lot of what Wikoff and Demetria have apparently been
Speaker 2: talking about is not so much peace in Ukraine but
Speaker 2: business deals that might be done between the United States
Speaker 2: and Russia. And that's not really a very good starting
Speaker 2: point as far as I'm concerned, or as anybody Ukrainians
Speaker 2: are concerned, or the Europeans are concerned. That's not really
Speaker 2: a good starting point for talking about how to end
Speaker 2: the war, because because the thing that will in the
Speaker 2: war is expressions of American European commitment to Ukraine. Well,
Speaker 2: you know, Putin has to be persuaded that Ukraine will
Speaker 2: be able to continue fighting for a long time, and
Speaker 2: then maybe he will rethink his maynaim. And that's not
Speaker 2: the role that would Cough is playing.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to cut to the chase here. If
Speaker 1: I just think about this as game theory. But if
Speaker 1: I'm Vladimir Putin, I have the most supportive, malleable American
Speaker 1: president that I'll ever have, probably right, and he knows
Speaker 1: he can, and he continues. It feels as if he
Speaker 1: gets to put he has pushed Trump further closer and
Speaker 1: closer to him. As this is dragged on, and now
Speaker 1: they've negotiated without the Europeans and without the Ukrainians. Here
Speaker 1: is there a point where where where Putin is overreaching
Speaker 1: Here and even even Trump will realize he's being played.
Speaker 2: Trump seems to be resistant to the idea that he's
Speaker 2: being played. He he continually it's it's and it's strange
Speaker 2: because he's so easily offended by everybody else, by other leaders,
Speaker 2: by journalists. But there are particular people. Actually, the Saudi
Speaker 2: crown Prince was one of them. We saw that in
Speaker 2: Washington also yesterday. Putin is another who seemed to have
Speaker 2: a special status for him. And my guess is it's
Speaker 2: because they're very rich, and he thinks that he can
Speaker 2: do business deals with them, and he doesn't want them insulted,
Speaker 2: and he doesn't seem to take what he doesn't take
Speaker 2: their insults as as seriously as he does others. And
Speaker 2: so it doesn't it doesn't feel like he's close to that.
Speaker 2: I mean, he may be miscalculating in another way, though,
Speaker 2: which is that you know, point in the war, the
Speaker 2: Europeans are supporting the Ukrainians far more than the US is,
Speaker 2: certainly in sheer monetary terms. They definitely are. And the
Speaker 2: Ukrainians themselves, also, as the President would have put it,
Speaker 2: have their own cards, they have their own weapons industry.
Speaker 2: They made two million drones last year and they're going
Speaker 2: to make four million drones this year, and they've been
Speaker 2: using them to effectively hit Russian oil refineries and other
Speaker 2: targets connected to the oil and gas industry. And you know,
Speaker 2: it's not clear that Trump has control over this war.
Speaker 2: In other words, a decision that he makes will end it.
Speaker 2: So it's a it's an odd moment where we're still
Speaker 2: playing the game putin talking to Trumpell and the war,
Speaker 2: but there are so many other factors now that he
Speaker 2: doesn't seem to be taking into account.
Speaker 1: According to this report in Xios, there was a sense
Speaker 1: that and you could hear it that the that certain
Speaker 1: members of the administration think that Zelenski's politically weak at
Speaker 1: the moment because of the scandal that just sort of
Speaker 1: forced out a few of his cabinet ministers, and that
Speaker 1: they essentially can jam him. I know you've got particular
Speaker 1: insight on that on the ground domestically with Ukraine. What
Speaker 1: kind of what kind of political peril is Zelenski in
Speaker 1: at the moment domestically.
Speaker 2: So remember that the reason there is a corruption scandal
Speaker 2: right now in Ukraine is that the Ukrainian state, a
Speaker 2: state institution, is investigating the operations of the state. In
Speaker 2: other words, this is the Ukrainian government acting. And although
Speaker 2: it has identified a couple of ministers who one or
Speaker 2: two of whom are close to Zelenski, it's doing so
Speaker 2: within the law. It's not as if, you know, the
Speaker 2: IMF has come in and said you're corrupt, or even
Speaker 2: Germans we have or something there or right, or the
Speaker 2: US has. This is actually internal to the Ukrainian political
Speaker 2: system and it's part of Ukrainian democracy and it's supported
Speaker 2: by most Ukrainians. And so assuming that Zelenski you know,
Speaker 2: doesn't try to block it or stop it, and so
Speaker 2: far he hasn't. So far, he done nothing like that.
Speaker 2: He said, you know, let the investigations continue. Assuming that continues,
Speaker 2: then he may emerge more strongly from this scandal actually
Speaker 2: because he would then be seen to have presided over
Speaker 2: something that Ukrainians want, which is a kind of clean government. This,
Speaker 2: by the way, the nature of the scandal is not
Speaker 2: to do with US or European AID, so at least
Speaker 2: not as far as we know so far. It's to
Speaker 2: do with kickbacks on contracts, which is more which is
Speaker 2: more internal.
Speaker 1: I hate to call it this. It felt like running
Speaker 1: the mill government graft when I read the story, right, like,
Speaker 1: you're like, oh, well, this happens pretty much everywhere around
Speaker 1: the world. There's always somebody's skimming something off the top
Speaker 1: or are getting up.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And also, of course it's something that you can't imagine
Speaker 2: in cash Betel's FBI doing like you can't imagine this
Speaker 2: happening now in the United States. So cash Betel's FBI
Speaker 2: investigating Trump administration deals for example, or or or Trump
Speaker 2: cabinet members. So this is evidence of the strength of
Speaker 2: Ukrainian democracy and of transparency and so on. So you
Speaker 2: have to you have to keep that in mind.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's a miscalculation that there's a moment
Speaker 1: to jam Zelensky here that the US may be misreading
Speaker 1: the situation.
Speaker 2: So given that we I don't know any of the details,
Speaker 2: well none of us, right, I mean, the Ukrainians you know,
Speaker 2: have no interest in ending the war, or I should
Speaker 2: say that differently, they have they have no interest in
Speaker 2: how creating a ceasefire for the sake of a ceasefire.
Speaker 2: In other words, having a ceasefire that will just kick
Speaker 2: the problem down the road a little while, give the
Speaker 2: Russians time to rearm h and start the war again.
Speaker 2: That's not something that they find use. I mean, there's
Speaker 2: a there's a problem actually with the way wit Coff
Speaker 2: and Trump negotiate, which is that they want a big headline,
Speaker 2: just like the same thing has just happened in Gaza,
Speaker 2: big headline, end of the war, ceasefire, hostages returned forgetting
Speaker 2: that loss of hostages were returned by the Biden administration
Speaker 2: as well. And then actually there is no solution, and
Speaker 2: we don't know how the war is going to end,
Speaker 2: and actually the fighting is continuing in new ways, and
Speaker 2: I think the Ukrainians are afraid of that. And there,
Speaker 2: you know, so there's no you know, there's you know,
Speaker 2: unless they're going to be offered something that has some substance,
Speaker 2: in other words, stop fighting right now, which, by the way,
Speaker 2: they've said they would do, stop fighting right now on
Speaker 2: the current you know, on the current battle front lines. Uh.
Speaker 2: And you know, then we will ensure that we reinforce
Speaker 2: you and then we can begin negotiations with some kind
Speaker 2: of guarantee that the Russians won't use this uh to
Speaker 2: to start fighting again. I mean, unless there's something that
Speaker 2: offers them something real, then I don't see how you
Speaker 2: can jam them. As I said, they have their own agency,
Speaker 2: they have their own sources of.
Speaker 1: Money, and at this point the war itself has changed
Speaker 1: in that it's not using as many It's a drone
Speaker 1: war more or less.
Speaker 2: Right now, this is a really important point, and I
Speaker 2: don't think it's really understood by most Americans. This is
Speaker 2: a completely different kind of war from the kind of
Speaker 2: war it was at the beginning, and it's also a
Speaker 2: different kind of war from any war in history. So
Speaker 2: there is a there is a kind of ten twenty
Speaker 2: miles on either side of the front line which are
Speaker 2: now completely transparent. Everything can be seen because there's so
Speaker 2: many drones in the air, and that means that old
Speaker 2: kinds of military tactics whereby you know you did a
Speaker 2: secret raid or you've got are all visible. And it's
Speaker 2: very very hard in that situation to move forward because
Speaker 2: as soon as any Russian trucks or tanks or people
Speaker 2: move into this visible zone, the Ukrainians can hit them.
Speaker 2: And so the tactics of the war have been about
Speaker 2: electronic warfare, how the drones are being used, and the
Speaker 2: Ukrainians also now have a system whereby the drone industry
Speaker 2: is connected directly to the front line, so as the
Speaker 2: situation changes on the front line, they radio back to
Speaker 2: the factory not far away, and they change the way
Speaker 2: the drone is being built, or they change the software
Speaker 2: whatever needs to be changed. So there's a kind of
Speaker 2: constant updating of the technology, which I mean is also
Speaker 2: the speed of it is something that I don't think
Speaker 2: we've seen anywhere else before.
Speaker 1: So it's such a strange war. And you're right, I've
Speaker 1: been trying to get my I had Dexter focus on
Speaker 1: recently and he was he had just been there trying
Speaker 1: to explain and how frankly, how the Pentagon now is
Speaker 1: studying rights, everyone is studying what's happening here, because obviously
Speaker 1: warfare is going to change with the with the advent
Speaker 1: of drones. But that so if you if you need
Speaker 1: fewer human soldiers, but there are now more defenseless civilians,
Speaker 1: and both the Ukrainians and the Russians are using their
Speaker 1: drones to go to try to write I assume the
Speaker 1: new pressure points are civilian population.
Speaker 2: So what the Russians are doing is hitting civilian cities
Speaker 2: very very hard. Actually, there was one this morning in Tarnopol.
Speaker 2: There was a something like seven miss cruise missiles that
Speaker 2: may not be precise, but a very strong attack hit
Speaker 2: a Ukrainian city that's pretty far from the front line. Actually,
Speaker 2: it's kind of in western Ukraine. And that's how the
Speaker 2: Russians have been seeking to terrorize and demoralize Ukrainians. Ukrainians
Speaker 2: are doing something different, which is the Ukrainians, as I said,
Speaker 2: are hitting Russian energy export infrastructure and oil refineries, and
Speaker 2: they're doing so pretty effectively, so much so that they've
Speaker 2: taken out about a quarter of Russia's refining capability. In
Speaker 2: the recent they hit a very important export port on
Speaker 2: the Black Sea, which is where oil goes through. And
Speaker 2: so their calculation is that the Russians don't care about men,
Speaker 2: you know, so they don't care how many people die,
Speaker 2: they're not bothered by that. But they do care about money,
Speaker 2: as one put it to me, and so they're trying
Speaker 2: to you know, their effort to stop the war is
Speaker 2: going that way. You know, they need to make the
Speaker 2: cost of the war so high that, as I said,
Speaker 2: the point being that Putin changes his mind and you know,
Speaker 2: and begins to think it's unwinnable or it's not worth winning,
Speaker 2: which is, by the way, how colonial wars, which is
Speaker 2: what this is, usually end, is that the capital decides
Speaker 2: that it's not worth it anymore and the colony is
Speaker 2: allowed to go. If you look at the Algerian French
Speaker 2: War in Algeria or something like that.
Speaker 1: Look, you can't go a week without seeing a headline
Speaker 1: whether it's in the Financial Times, but somewhere in Europe
Speaker 1: that does try to some reporting out of Russia. I mean,
Speaker 1: the economy seems to be in just wretched shape in
Speaker 1: Russia that all of this is finally having is taking
Speaker 1: a toll. I mean, at what point does domestic pressure
Speaker 1: play a role here?
Speaker 2: Well, Putin has constructed his political system so that he
Speaker 2: feels very little domestic pressure. You know, there isn't a
Speaker 2: pathway for domestic pressure to express itself.
Speaker 1: Sure, but if people are not happy with that, the
Speaker 1: economy they start to get I mean it feels as
Speaker 1: if they're talking more and more. Put it that way,
Speaker 1: because there's more reports about this.
Speaker 2: People are talking more, people are angrier. Actually, there isn't
Speaker 2: real polling in Russia, but there are some opposition groups
Speaker 2: who do kind of measuring of sentiment online and that
Speaker 2: certainly swung against the war. I mean. Another kind of
Speaker 2: grim statistic is the number of people who commit suicide
Speaker 2: in the Russian lead mysteriously or fall out of windows
Speaker 2: or somehow or other disappear. And that number has also
Speaker 2: been pretty high recently, And so that means that those
Speaker 2: are people who are expressing in their circles some kind
Speaker 2: of descent or who are otherwise not going along with
Speaker 2: the program. And that's evidence that there is that You're right,
Speaker 2: there is this pressure. I mean, just the question is
Speaker 2: when at what point it really reaches Putin enforces this.
Speaker 2: You know, it's actually a political change, a change in
Speaker 2: language and rhetoric that either he has to make or
Speaker 2: his successful.
Speaker 1: There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like
Speaker 1: there's a reason. Morgan and Morgan is America's largest injury
Speaker 1: law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered
Speaker 1: twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.
Speaker 1: It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing
Speaker 1: just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Speaker 1: Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which
Speaker 1: was a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance
Speaker 1: company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: So with more than one thousand lawyers across the country,
Speaker 1: they know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
Speaker 1: you need a lawyer, you need somebody to get your back.
Speaker 1: Check out for the People dot com, Slash podcast or
Speaker 1: now Pound Law, Pound five to nine law on your
Speaker 1: cell phone. And remember all law firms are not the same.
Speaker 1: So check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free
Speaker 1: unless they win the killing off Progosion, I mean Putin
Speaker 1: was probably saved himself on that because there is nobody
Speaker 1: that can sort of challenge him internally if someone chose to,
Speaker 1: but he.
Speaker 2: Could have well Progosion. Yeah, Progosion had a real constituency
Speaker 2: and his constituency if you for those who don't remember,
Speaker 2: he was the lead leader of the Wagner group who
Speaker 2: staged this extraordinary which was a kind of paramilitary mercenarif
Speaker 2: that's right. He had originally been a chef. He ran
Speaker 2: actually he was the one who yeah, he was the
Speaker 2: one who ran the online influence operations during the twenty
Speaker 2: sixteen election here so, and he then became the head
Speaker 2: of this mercenary force and he had a real constituency,
Speaker 2: so the mercenaries were very devoted to him. So he
Speaker 2: actually had armed men who were on his side and
Speaker 2: who were becoming at that time very critical of the
Speaker 2: war and of why it was being fought and why
Speaker 2: it had started in a lot I mean speaking of corruption,
Speaker 2: the enormous amount of corruption around defense in the military there,
Speaker 2: and so he expressed it by making this critical statements.
Speaker 2: And then he launched this march on Moscow that he boarded,
Speaker 2: and then afterwards he had a plane accident. So he
Speaker 2: was he was an example of someone who had a constituency.
Speaker 2: And the problem with other opponents of Putin that they
Speaker 2: don't have that they don't have, you know, a team
Speaker 2: of armed guys that they can count on who might
Speaker 2: who might scare the president. But you know, it's also
Speaker 2: one of the lessons of Russian history, and I have
Speaker 2: written about it my whole life, almost is that, you know,
Speaker 2: the regime seems inevitable and eternal until the day it falls.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you look at the Zaris.
Speaker 1: You're describing bankruptcy, right, you know, first it's slowly and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden it's quickly.
Speaker 2: But you look at the way the Czarist Revolution happened,
Speaker 2: you know that was totally unexpected. If you look at
Speaker 2: the way the Soviet Union fell months before that, nobody
Speaker 2: thought that was going to happen, you know. And so
Speaker 2: I'm always hesitant to make predictions about about Putins Russia,
Speaker 2: to say that it's you know, it's going to last
Speaker 2: forever or it's going to end next week, because the
Speaker 2: system is very strong in that he controls all these
Speaker 2: levers of power, He controls the media, the military, the
Speaker 2: of me and so on. But it's also very weak
Speaker 2: in that once his authority is questioned, it's not clear
Speaker 2: who comes next. So there's no there's no successor there's
Speaker 2: no succession process. There's no pollt bureau, you know there
Speaker 2: you know, so as soon as something happens to him
Speaker 2: or there's lacks of faith in him, then you might
Speaker 2: get changed very quickly.
Speaker 1: How much does he need China right now? And is
Speaker 1: there a point where China is just like it's not
Speaker 1: worth the cost.
Speaker 2: He is totally dependent on China. He's dependent on China
Speaker 2: for trade, He's dependent on China as the market for
Speaker 2: oil and gas. He's dependent on China politically. The Chinese
Speaker 2: have stood up for him in various international fora and
Speaker 2: so on. The Chinese seem to be defending me, even
Speaker 2: though I think they had They were they were surprised
Speaker 2: by the invasion of Ukraine, and they were also I
Speaker 2: think somewhat horrified by it. I mean, they had investments
Speaker 2: in Ukraine and they'd students there and so on. But
Speaker 2: they the Chinese have stuck with the Russians, and I
Speaker 2: think will stick with them because they see the war
Speaker 2: as a way of weakening the United States. They see
Speaker 2: it as a tool that they can use to weaken
Speaker 2: the perception of American power, maybe to weaken the American
Speaker 2: European Alliance, which actually is happening pretty effectively without them.
Speaker 1: But I was just going to say President Trump is
Speaker 1: going on on his own trying to weaken this alliance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and of course that's also a mistake because the again,
Speaker 2: the way the war ends is through American European solidarity.
Speaker 2: You know, make make Putin think it will never crack,
Speaker 2: stick with the stick with the Ukrainians, and then you know,
Speaker 2: wait for the moment of wait for the shift. But
Speaker 2: the you know, this constant movement back and forth, this
Speaker 2: attempt to do business deals and so on, all of
Speaker 2: that gives Putin the feeling that if he just keeps going,
Speaker 2: he'll win. And he has, as I said, as we've
Speaker 2: just said, he has allies. Not only that, he has
Speaker 2: North Korean allies. North Koreans have sent troops to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: He has Iranian allies. They've sent drones to Ukraine. You know,
Speaker 2: there is a this being the topic of the book
Speaker 2: we discussed, I mean, this is the this is the
Speaker 2: there is a kind of network of the autocratic world,
Speaker 2: and you can see it really most clearly there.
Speaker 1: I know, you have particular insight into Poland, and there
Speaker 1: was another sort of there are always these Did Russia
Speaker 1: do this on purpose? I don't think there's ever been
Speaker 1: an accidental incursion into Poland during this war. I'm curious,
Speaker 1: but what do they think They're accomplishing here, because it
Speaker 1: feels as if the last thing they should want is
Speaker 1: to sort of steal the resolve of Eastern Europeans.
Speaker 2: Now, well, so you're talking about two things. I mean,
Speaker 2: there was this drone incursion into Poland. And also in
Speaker 2: the last few.
Speaker 1: Days there blew up a train line, right a train track.
Speaker 2: There was a train from Warsaw to Lublin that goes to.
Speaker 1: And they assume, and I know that the polesy essentially
Speaker 1: said they assume it's Russian sabotage, but they hadn't.
Speaker 2: I think they know who it is already as far
Speaker 2: as I know. I mean, there's one little nuance which
Speaker 2: is interesting, was it looks like what the perpetrators were
Speaker 2: Ukrainians originally originally Ukrainian citizens who were employed and paid
Speaker 2: by Russia and seemed to have escaped into Beilarus. And
Speaker 2: so I think the purpose of it, the purpose of
Speaker 2: this is always to you know, the Russians think a
Speaker 2: lot about creating antagonism. You know, they want there to
Speaker 2: be antagonism between Warsan Kiev. You know, they want to
Speaker 2: create suspicion of Ukrainians in Poland. They may also have
Speaker 2: the scary thing about the train story is that they
Speaker 2: may have been trying to kill a lot of people
Speaker 2: because if the bomb didn't go off the way it
Speaker 2: was supposed to go off. It it had done, it
Speaker 2: might have knocked a train over an embankment and hundreds
Speaker 2: of at least hundreds of people might have died. So
Speaker 2: I think they're looking for some kind of spectacular scene.
Speaker 2: And you know, their calculation is that if we do
Speaker 2: enough stuff like that will scare people, you know, will
Speaker 2: frighten them into not supporting Ukraine, or will make people
Speaker 2: stay home. I mean, as you just observe, the Russians
Speaker 2: are good at stuff like that, but they're also not
Speaker 2: so good sometimes at understanding how it will affect people.
Speaker 2: And I think the impact in Poland is going to
Speaker 2: be the opposite. I mean, the more you bring the
Speaker 2: war home to people in Poland, or in Germany where
Speaker 2: it's similar there have been similar incidents, or in Scandinavia
Speaker 2: where there have been some drone drones who threatened the
Speaker 2: Copenhagen airport, the more you do that, the more you
Speaker 2: inspire European populations to want to defend Ukraine. And I
Speaker 2: should say again, European spending is going up. It's probably
Speaker 2: the main conversation in Brussels right now at EU meetings.
Speaker 2: Big story in Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, the UK, not everywhere
Speaker 2: in Europe, but a lot of European countries are taking
Speaker 2: it really seriously.
Speaker 1: Is all the U US aid now to Ukraine indirect?
Speaker 1: It all goes through NATO. Basically NATO buys from US
Speaker 1: and then it moves there. What what? How? How is
Speaker 1: usaid into Ukraine working these days? What's best?
Speaker 2: So I don't I don't know. There there was still
Speaker 2: some aid that was purchased under the Biden administration that
Speaker 2: was still coming into Ukraine, and I don't know at
Speaker 2: this exact second the status of it, whether it's all
Speaker 2: finished or whether there's some still going in. There have
Speaker 2: been some big European purchases, and the US has two
Speaker 2: things that nobody else has. One of them is patriot missiles,
Speaker 2: which defend which can be used to defend Ukrainian cities.
Speaker 2: So this is this is about defending civilians from missile attack,
Speaker 2: and the US just has more of them and they
Speaker 2: work better, and that's something the Ukrainians are trying to buy.
Speaker 2: And I think the Europeans have done deals to buy.
Speaker 2: And the other thing the US has is intelligence, the
Speaker 2: real time satellite intelligence, and that is beginning to be replaced,
Speaker 2: but might not be totally. But as I said, the
Speaker 2: bulk of money is coming from Europe to pay for
Speaker 2: all this.
Speaker 1: Because I'll be honest, my assumption that the most likely
Speaker 1: scenario here in the regards to this which cough negotiated
Speaker 1: proposal to end the war, is that Trump will use
Speaker 1: if the Ukrainians say no, right, you know, Europeans sort
Speaker 1: of poo poo it that that's what he'll use to
Speaker 1: basically say, well, I'm out, I'm walking away, the US
Speaker 1: walks away, What does that look like?
Speaker 2: So it depends what walk away means walking away, leaving
Speaker 2: in place. The intelligence cooperation is bad, but maybe not
Speaker 2: that bad, you know. It then puts the Europeans as
Speaker 2: the main ally of Ukraine and we can stop having
Speaker 2: this pretense that America negotiating with Russia will solve the problem.
Speaker 2: Also though, you know, I think this was Trump's goal
Speaker 2: before and Zelenski leave, to find an excuse to leave,
Speaker 2: and actually it was. It was when Zelenski agreed as
Speaker 2: only he said he would accept an immediate ceasefire if
Speaker 2: there were.
Speaker 1: To be won, and then Trump he knew that Trump
Speaker 1: had to go.
Speaker 2: Back, right, And it's it's actually once again, it's the
Speaker 2: Russians who don't want to cease fire because the Russians
Speaker 2: still think they're going to win, you know. And so
Speaker 2: if Zelensky continues to repeat that that he'll accept a ceasefire,
Speaker 2: maybe maybe he can ward this off.
Speaker 1: Is it your suspicion, then then that probably what we
Speaker 1: haven't seen the deal. But if what the Russians have
Speaker 1: agreed to they know the Ukrainians will reject, and that
Speaker 1: they they know one of the outcomes could be Trump
Speaker 1: just walking away, which is actually they don't care well
Speaker 1: that or do they want the Americans still in the loop.
Speaker 2: So what the Russians were asking for before was for
Speaker 2: Ukrainian territory that they haven't conquered. They were they were
Speaker 2: demanding possession of some land that they have never that
Speaker 2: they've never managed to uh to occupy. I remember, the
Speaker 2: Russians have been fighting in Dunbass and Eastern Ukraine. They've
Speaker 2: been fighting for more than ten years, and they still
Speaker 2: haven't managed to conquer all the territory they claim. And
Speaker 2: so and that of course is unacceptable. Zelenski can't give
Speaker 2: away territory for no reason and in exchange for nothing
Speaker 2: that they were they weren't the Russians weren't offering any
Speaker 2: other kind of concession. Maybe there's some other maybe there's
Speaker 2: some twist to it now that that I that I
Speaker 2: don't know about. But if that's still what they're saying,
Speaker 2: that will you know, we want this extra land and
Speaker 2: we want Ukraine to disarm. That was the other piece
Speaker 2: of it. We want to we want to demilitarized Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Then Ukrainians can accept that, because that's just an invitation
Speaker 2: to the Russians to take territory they haven't conquered, and
Speaker 2: then to take over Ukraine next year, you know, or
Speaker 2: the year after and so again. Unless unless there's a
Speaker 2: deal that reflects some kind of you know, some kind
Speaker 2: of acceptance that Ukraine has a right to exist, Zelensky
Speaker 2: can't accept it. And by the way, and I don't
Speaker 2: I don't think anybody would be surprised by the in
Speaker 2: other words of Putin's I if Trump says I have
Speaker 2: this great deal, and you know, Ukrainians are supposed to
Speaker 2: disarm and give away their territory, I don't think that
Speaker 2: even that. Most Americans would say, well, that sounds fantastic.
Speaker 2: Why aren't the Ukrainians going along with it?
Speaker 1: But it's your your your suspicion is is it still
Speaker 1: the same as it was before? That Trump's looking for
Speaker 1: a way just to walk away from this issue.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think he probably authentically wants the thing
Speaker 3: he got in Gaza, which is some big announcement that
Speaker 3: people think is a peace plan or a piece deal,
Speaker 3: which isn't really a peace deal, just as the plan
Speaker 3: in Gaza wasn't a peace deal, wasn't a.
Speaker 2: Complete peace deal. He wants. You know, what Trump is
Speaker 2: always interested in is winning the moment or whatever moment
Speaker 2: he's in, whatever conversation he's in, he wants to emerge.
Speaker 1: I would say he's always buying time to whatever it is.
Speaker 1: He's always pushing off hard decisions.
Speaker 2: But he also doesn't he doesn't have a long term strategy.
Speaker 2: He doesn't have an idea for how Ukraine and Russia
Speaker 2: will co exist over the next ten years, or he
Speaker 2: doesn't think about what how the rest of the world
Speaker 2: would perceive his abandonment of Ukraine, what that would do
Speaker 2: to other kinds of American interests. You know, he doesn't
Speaker 2: think in that global way. He only thinks like, how
Speaker 2: do I win? How do I how do I emerge
Speaker 2: from this?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's funny you say that, because I've
Speaker 1: been thinking about the Venezuela issue and sort of how
Speaker 1: we're going about this and the message that China is
Speaker 1: taking from it, and the message that Russia is taking
Speaker 1: from it. Yep, right, this is quote unquote our hemisphere
Speaker 1: and we're dealing with what we say is a problem.
Speaker 1: So they even make a law enforcement issue, right that
Speaker 1: this is a this is a creating a national security
Speaker 1: sort of pretext, I guess. But you know what we're
Speaker 1: doing with Venezuela, what would Putin say, wouldn't he argue?
Speaker 1: It's no different than what he's trying to do in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Of course, it's also almost an exact blueprint of what
Speaker 2: the Chinese could do in Taiwan. I mean, it's very
Speaker 2: very similar. I mean this is my I even a
Speaker 2: lot of qualms about Venezuela, although I think it's you know,
Speaker 2: that's a it is a very ugly regime, and I
Speaker 2: know lots of people who would like it to fall.
Speaker 1: Well, look, I'm a Miami. I grew up in Miami,
Speaker 1: and I'm very empathetic. I got a lot of Venezuelan friends,
Speaker 1: and I I if the administration we're making a democracy
Speaker 1: case what they're doing, I would feel better. But the
Speaker 1: fact that they're not, and they're basically lying about the
Speaker 1: situation in order to do this, You're just like, this
Speaker 1: is you're going about this the wrong way for an
Speaker 1: outcome that maybe many people would like to see, but
Speaker 1: this is not the time for an ends justifies the
Speaker 1: means moment.
Speaker 2: No, And as you say, it sets a terrible example.
Speaker 2: You know, it says we get to this country is
Speaker 2: close to us, and so we get to do whatever
Speaker 2: we want, and we can do extra judicial murders of
Speaker 2: what might be drug traffickers or might be fishermen, and
Speaker 2: we can park lots of boats, you know, big ships
Speaker 2: around the coast, and we can threaten you know, we
Speaker 2: can issue threats and we do it with impunity because
Speaker 2: it's our hemisphere. And this is exactly the argument that
Speaker 2: Putin has made about Ukraine. I mean, with nuances. It's
Speaker 2: very similar to what the Chinese could start to say
Speaker 2: about Taiwan, and Taiwan threatens our national security because we
Speaker 2: say so, you know, right, and it's it's really profoundly
Speaker 2: undermining too, the the you know, the the idea really
Speaker 2: that small countries have rights, that borders have meaning that
Speaker 2: you know that there is some kind of international system
Speaker 2: that people that people have respect for. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: been deteriorating for a long time, and you can you
Speaker 2: can you can find previous American presidents who also undermined it.
Speaker 2: But this is, this feels like something new, especially in
Speaker 2: the context of the war in Ukraine and of China's
Speaker 2: threats to.
Speaker 1: Taiwan in your book obviously you were just referring to
Speaker 1: it before that there is you know that there now
Speaker 1: really is a network of these autocrats. We had the
Speaker 1: visit what is Saudi Arabia? Is it an autocracy? I
Speaker 1: call you know, I don't believe in any monarchies. I
Speaker 1: believe there's either benevolent dictators or malevolent dictators. And the
Speaker 1: benevolent ones we call king and the malevolent ones we
Speaker 1: call something else. But that's my sort of that's my spin.
Speaker 1: But where do you put Saudi Arabia on this? And
Speaker 1: because it feels like we really and this wasn't just
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, the Biden administration. I mean, I've had
Speaker 1: this conversation with Jake Sullivan everything about we'd be like, look,
Speaker 1: we've got to tolerate some of this from the Saudis
Speaker 1: because we need them on our side. We don't want
Speaker 1: them on China side. What do you put Saudi Arabian?
Speaker 1: What is our CosIng back up to them? Do in
Speaker 1: your thinking about where autocracy is going?
Speaker 2: So Saudi Arabia is Saudi Araba like the other Golf states,
Speaker 2: is a little different from the Russia, China, Iran, North
Speaker 2: Korea nexus in that, at least for the moment, their
Speaker 2: primary interest isn't undermining US, okay, and that is the
Speaker 2: primary interest of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela Bilarus.
Speaker 2: And so they they are different. They are of course
Speaker 2: they're an autocracy. Autocracy and monarchy goes under the is
Speaker 2: a sub category of autocracy. They're an autocracy in that
Speaker 2: it's a state where they rule without the leader's rule,
Speaker 2: without checks and balances. There's no transparency, there's no there's
Speaker 2: no real opposition, there's you know, people don't have rights
Speaker 2: and they're above all. There's no rule of law, there's
Speaker 2: rule by law, which means the law is with the
Speaker 2: king says laws, and it can change. And at the
Speaker 2: moment he's a little bit more benevolent than he than
Speaker 2: some previous Saudi leaders were, but that could change in
Speaker 2: a heartbeat if he feels like it. And so it's
Speaker 2: it's so, that's the kind of political system it is.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's been one that has been willing to
Speaker 2: cooperate with us, and that's you know, there are reasons
Speaker 2: why it's useful to talk to them. You know, they
Speaker 2: they're they're they're constructive things that the Saudis can do.
Speaker 2: And as I said, they don't have a either a
Speaker 2: military apparatus or a you know, or a propaganda apparatus
Speaker 2: that's aimed at us, which most of the other countries do.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, I don't object to American presidents
Speaker 2: talking to Saudi leaders. I think what I find troublesome
Speaker 2: about Trump's relationships is, first of all, his family's enormous
Speaker 2: conflicts of interest there. You know, his sons are doing
Speaker 2: deal with Saudi company building hotels.
Speaker 1: A hallmark of a budding autocracy is when the family
Speaker 1: members of the leader are benefiting financially. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't look, I don't want to go down the road
Speaker 1: that we're there. I mean, I think it's the Republican
Speaker 1: Party right now that's under this sort of control. It's
Speaker 1: not yet spread everywhere in this country, but it's certainly
Speaker 1: the beginnings of it.
Speaker 2: Oh No, it's it's a it's a hallmark and the
Speaker 2: personalization of power. The fact that you have to offer
Speaker 2: a plane or a gold bar, as some Swiss businessman
Speaker 2: did a few days ago to the President in order
Speaker 2: to work create the atmosphere for your trade deal or
Speaker 2: your negotiation.
Speaker 1: I mean, let me go back to President, let me
Speaker 1: go back to Cotter. They gave a plane, and now
Speaker 1: they get non they get they get basically NATO like
Speaker 1: security agreement from the United States, I mean, which is
Speaker 1: apparently what the Saudis are now asking for. And it
Speaker 1: is amazing that we gave Cotter a deal that we
Speaker 1: had yet to give the Saudis. And if I were
Speaker 1: the Sadi's I feel kind of put off by that,
Speaker 1: given given what the Saudis have meant to the United
Speaker 1: States over the years versus what Cutter has and hasn't.
Speaker 2: I mean, and think, I think when when When the
Speaker 2: leader of Saudi Arabia walks into the Oval office and
Speaker 2: seees Donald Trump, what does he think he thinks I
Speaker 2: own this guy?
Speaker 3: You know, I'm I'm I'm.
Speaker 2: Paying for the golf tournament that went on his golf course.
Speaker 2: I've given I've put a you know, a billion dollar,
Speaker 2: two billion dollar, I think investment into his son in
Speaker 2: law's company. I'm doing business with his family all over
Speaker 2: the Middle East, and who knows what else. I mean,
Speaker 2: a lot of Trump's finances, especially the crypto companies, are
Speaker 2: are pretty opaque. We don't really know who's paying into
Speaker 2: them and how and he and he does need something
Speaker 2: from the United States. I mean, Saudi is a country
Speaker 2: that is very wealthy. Obviously they have all this oil,
Speaker 2: but it's also very weak, doesn't have much of a military.
Speaker 2: It can't really defend itself, and so you know, they're
Speaker 2: in they they have a huge interest in buying off
Speaker 2: the American president and getting something, and you know, getting
Speaker 2: F thirty five's or getting weapons from the insance. I mean,
Speaker 2: the question here, and this is this is you know,
Speaker 2: returning to your original point, is what do the American
Speaker 2: people get out of it? Why are what do we
Speaker 2: get out of this relationship with Saudi Arabia. You know,
Speaker 2: the you know is the when the American president.
Speaker 1: They argue stability in the Middle East? I mean, is
Speaker 1: that is that the best we can offer the American public?
Speaker 2: I mean, if that's the point, I mean, that's great,
Speaker 2: and I would support that point. If the point is
Speaker 2: to enrich the president's family, if that's what we're getting
Speaker 2: out of it, then I then I'm more worried. So
Speaker 2: there's always a question with Donald Trump, and it's exactly
Speaker 2: the same as his negotiations with the Russians. Why is
Speaker 2: he doing this? Is he doing it for personal benefit,
Speaker 2: for his family's benefit, or is it in some broader interests?
Speaker 2: And I just for all the flaws of many previous
Speaker 2: American presidents, I can't think of one who negotiated abroad,
Speaker 2: you know, about whom there was that question is who's
Speaker 2: who's benefiting?
Speaker 1: And that's that previous president way waited to suck up
Speaker 1: to the Saudi's after they left office for library friends, right,
Speaker 1: Like I mean, I hate to be that cytical about it,
Speaker 1: but it was sort of there was almost like an
Speaker 1: agreed upon hey don't don't don't use your contacts there
Speaker 1: until after you leave to enrich yourself. I mean, I
Speaker 1: hate to be that senecal.
Speaker 2: Sure, but you did you know, even the worst I
Speaker 2: don't know, you know, even even the Bush family who
Speaker 2: had oil interests. I mean, when George w or his
Speaker 2: father were negotiating with the Saudis, were they thinking about
Speaker 2: specific business deals that are that are being negotiated right
Speaker 2: now and that I don't think so.
Speaker 1: This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wildgrain. Wild Grain is the first bake from Frozen
Speaker 1: subscription box for arteasonal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas,
Speaker 1: plus all items conveniently bake in twenty five minutes or less.
Speaker 1: Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients
Speaker 1: you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can
Speaker 1: be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants.
Speaker 1: Wildgrain's boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal and
Speaker 1: limited time in products for you to enjoy. In addition
Speaker 1: to their classic box, they now feature a gluten free
Speaker 1: box and a plant based box. Checked out the gluten
Speaker 1: free box and let me tell you they have a
Speaker 1: gluten free sourdough bread.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 1: We got two loads of it and we've done one
Speaker 1: loaf already. It's a cranberry and almond sourdough bread. It's
Speaker 1: like the best raisin bread you've ever had, except it's
Speaker 1: not raisin. It's great. You're gonna love this. You know
Speaker 1: it's hit or miss if you mess around in the
Speaker 1: gluten free bread world. This is a hit. Seriously. I
Speaker 1: was impressed, so look for a limited time. Wild Grain
Speaker 1: is offering our listeners thirty dollars off your first box
Speaker 1: plus free croissants in every box when you go to
Speaker 1: wildgrain dot com slash podcast. To start your subscription, follow
Speaker 1: these instructions. Free crossants in every box, thirty dollars off
Speaker 1: your first box when you go to wildgrain dot com
Speaker 1: slash podcast. That's wildgrain dot com slash podcast. Or simply
Speaker 1: use the promo code podcast at checkout. Always use the code,
Speaker 1: get the discount. I'm telling you it's excellent, excellent bread.
Speaker 1: Where are you today When it comes to the fight
Speaker 1: between democracy and autocracy around the world, I know it
Speaker 1: feels as if democracy is in retreats, but it's not
Speaker 1: as if autocracy is succeeding either. Right. I mean, you
Speaker 1: do have a Chinese economy that is not great, that
Speaker 1: youth unemployment. So you know this idea that whose system
Speaker 1: is more stable, whose system is better. It's not as
Speaker 1: if these autocratic systems are having a golden age themselves.
Speaker 2: I would actually describe the contest from the beginning a
Speaker 2: little differently in that, Okay, this is not so much
Speaker 2: a contest between autocracies and democracies, because there are lots
Speaker 2: of different kinds. We just talked about. The Saudis and
Speaker 2: the Russians are quite different. It's on. This is really
Speaker 2: a contest between This is a war of ideas, of
Speaker 2: autocratic ideas against the ideas of liberal democracy, and that
Speaker 2: contest is taking place inside every country on the planet,
Speaker 2: including ours. So it happened. I mean, most European countries,
Speaker 2: even if they're formal democracies, they have autocratic political parties
Speaker 2: or movements. And by the same token, a lot of
Speaker 2: dictatorships have within them, you know, dissidents or or people
Speaker 2: who would like to end.
Speaker 1: With the woman who just won the Nobel Peace Prize
Speaker 1: in Venezuela. Right, absolutely, she's a great excaple.
Speaker 2: Yeah, interviewed her several times. Actually, in Venezuela, the Democratic
Speaker 2: opposition won an election through this extraordinary feet of organization
Speaker 2: and then proved that they want it. So, you know,
Speaker 2: so this is a this is a war of ideas.
Speaker 2: You know, do we want to live in political systems
Speaker 2: where one person or party or family controls you know,
Speaker 2: the media with no checks and balances, uh, you know,
Speaker 2: decides how the legal system works, doesn't offer people rights?
Speaker 2: Or do we want to live in a system where
Speaker 2: there are rights and there are independent institutions in dependent
Speaker 2: of the of the of the ruling party or the leader.
Speaker 2: And you know, and it does feel right now, I think,
Speaker 2: especially because of what's going on in the United States,
Speaker 2: like the democratic arguments are losing. But there's also no
Speaker 2: inevitability that you know, history doesn't work like that that
Speaker 2: you know, the you know, everything's swinging in one direction,
Speaker 2: and that's how it's going to go. You know, the
Speaker 2: fight is on, and the fight is inside our country,
Speaker 2: it's inside Russia, it's inside Ukraine. You know, the and
Speaker 2: the and the and the question is really whose arguments
Speaker 2: are going to win? And how do we and how
Speaker 2: do we express that victory.
Speaker 1: What do you think about the role that silicon Valley
Speaker 1: is now sort of playing a sort of infusing itself
Speaker 1: with this government in ways that we've not seen an
Speaker 1: industry do arghiabli in one hundred years, right, not since
Speaker 1: the industrialists of the of the early twentieth century. And
Speaker 1: you know, I think about this, you know, the philosophies
Speaker 1: that we've heard Peter Tiele espouse. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: this is somebody who does not believe in liberal democracy.
Speaker 1: He's very clear about it, right. I guess we should
Speaker 1: be happy that he's honest about it. But you know,
Speaker 1: I think Peter Peter Tiel is one of the most
Speaker 1: dangerous Americans in the country with his ideas and wealth
Speaker 1: combined and the access to power that he has already purchased.
Speaker 1: What should we be concerned? I mean, I sort of
Speaker 1: have faith in our democracy that the pitchforks are coming
Speaker 1: for Silicon Valley and they don't fully I don't think
Speaker 1: they fully see it yet, and that you know, we're
Speaker 1: going to have a Teddy Roosevelt moment here, But how
Speaker 1: do you see the role they're playing in this sort
Speaker 1: of competition between democracy and hutocracy.
Speaker 2: So Silicon Valley has a kind of power that no
Speaker 2: one has had before. And this is the power to
Speaker 2: influence I wouldn't say control, but influence and manipulate feelings
Speaker 2: and emotions and information. And they you know, they have
Speaker 2: these tools, you know, the you know, the algorithms that.
Speaker 1: Directly at times we're talking about science fiction sometimes with them.
Speaker 1: But yes, anyway, no, I mean, but but.
Speaker 2: You know, most people in America, if you're you know,
Speaker 2: if you're not someone who looks for news in other words,
Speaker 2: you click on the New York Times website or or
Speaker 2: even the Fox News website. If you're someone who just
Speaker 2: passively receives news, which I think is most people, then
Speaker 2: they decide what you see. You know, then your your
Speaker 2: preference for one kind of washing powder or one kind
Speaker 2: of shampoo might lead you to receive a political ad
Speaker 2: that people who like that kind of washing powder or
Speaker 2: shampoo get, or or or a clip or you know,
Speaker 2: or somebody expounding something on Instagram. And so we haven't
Speaker 2: never hed so to their their decisions are really shaping
Speaker 2: what it is that people see and perceive. And that
Speaker 2: does mean that they have, you know, something that I
Speaker 2: don't think anybody has had before. And actually in real autocracy,
Speaker 2: so in China, that power is controlled by the state,
Speaker 2: and the state, you know, they they they own that power.
Speaker 2: And in Russia they're seeking to own that power that
Speaker 2: Russians haven't. Their system is not as sophisticated as to Chinese,
Speaker 2: but they are trying to cut people off from Western
Speaker 2: Western social media. And in our country, you know, the
Speaker 2: idea was originally that this was a power that would
Speaker 2: be given to private companies and it would be therefore benign,
Speaker 2: and it would be divided between several groups, and it
Speaker 2: wouldn't you know, we would we would take care of
Speaker 2: it that way. And I think we're failing. I mean,
Speaker 2: and it's important that you mentioned Teddy Roosevelt because what
Speaker 2: did he do He broke up monopolies or he spoke
Speaker 2: about they were called trusts them And we are at
Speaker 2: a point where the there is time to ask whether
Speaker 2: these companies have too much power and whether they're truly
Speaker 2: patriotic companies. Do they want the he health of American democracy?
Speaker 2: Are they dedicated to making sure that we had better
Speaker 2: debates and better consensus and better information. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I had an interesting conversation with a recently retired general
Speaker 1: who sort of had a lot of insight in the
Speaker 1: first Trump term, and he expressed a concern. He says,
Speaker 1: you know, with the development of nuclear power, the government
Speaker 1: essentially was infused in the process in many ways. The
Speaker 1: Manhattan Project, right, it was a creation of the government.
Speaker 1: The development of the Internet, you know, came out of
Speaker 1: the Defense Department. He said, we're making this massive technological
Speaker 1: shift in our society where we have completely outsourced it
Speaker 1: to the private sector. That is not the way any
Speaker 1: of the other major technological shifts that altered the course
Speaker 1: of this country on technology has ever happened. And that
Speaker 1: spress like that is the he thought that was such
Speaker 1: a higher risk, and we haven't fully appreciated concentrating all
Speaker 1: that power into this private entity.
Speaker 2: The Atlantic had a good article recently about NASA and
Speaker 2: the difference between NASA and SpaceX. And NASA, which was our,
Speaker 2: you know, premier space institution in the United States, was
Speaker 2: people want to work for it because they were public
Speaker 2: servants and they were doing something on behalf of the
Speaker 2: United States of America. And SpaceX is a private company
Speaker 2: owned by Elon Musk, and people work in it to
Speaker 2: make money or there and the primary goal is not
Speaker 2: the public interest. The primary goal is to earn money
Speaker 2: for shareholders, and that is different.
Speaker 1: What is you know, how much of a how much
Speaker 1: of a danger do you think we are in domestically
Speaker 1: because of this kind of concentrated power. Looks on the outside,
Speaker 1: like Silicon Valley decided they made a bet and they said, well,
Speaker 1: Trump's more malleable than the Democrats on this one, so
Speaker 1: we're going to go all in here, you know. And
Speaker 1: it was the crypto crowd plus the AI crowd and
Speaker 1: they and they've pretty much gotten carte blanche from this administration.
Speaker 1: That seems to be step one of a scary development.
Speaker 2: Look, I think what they're looking for is not to
Speaker 2: be regulated, you know, they're looking for they don't want
Speaker 2: any any anything cramping their power, any any trust law,
Speaker 2: any other kind of law, anything that would question the trust.
Speaker 1: Their development of social media really really worked out well
Speaker 1: without regulation. So sure, let's let them do this.
Speaker 2: No No, But they know there's backlash, They've heard it,
Speaker 2: and they're what they're now doing is trying to stave
Speaker 2: off the consequences. And it's pretty pernicious. So it's not
Speaker 2: just here. Uh, they're also working pretty hard in Europe
Speaker 2: to make sure that they aren't regulated by the European Union,
Speaker 2: which is probably the only institution left on the planet
Speaker 2: that could regulate them. And they're even to the extent
Speaker 2: of Musk supporting anti European political parties in Germany and elsewhere.
Speaker 2: So they're very conscious of this, the coming backlash, and
Speaker 2: they're preparing very hard to prevent anything from hampering their power.
Speaker 2: And I think it's something that would be very useful
Speaker 2: for more Americans to be aware of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, look, I think I actually have I do believe
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty eight presidential election is going to be
Speaker 1: more centered on this, you know, be or of AI
Speaker 1: job displacement, all of that is going to sort of
Speaker 1: concentrate I think the conversation a little bit on this,
Speaker 1: but let me get you out of here. Actually some
Speaker 1: on Europe, which really sort of would go back the
Speaker 1: unintended consequence of Donald Trump's quasi isolationism. I say quasi
Speaker 1: because it's not really it's more transactionalism. But let's say
Speaker 1: the the perception of the pullback, this feels like it's
Speaker 1: made Europe stronger than ever and that the EU is
Speaker 1: now a thing, and that native that there is that Europe.
Speaker 1: You know that that it was this has been a
Speaker 1: wake up call to Europe and that there is a
Speaker 1: as you said, look, Europe may be able to just
Speaker 1: keep supporting Ukraine regardless of what the United States decides.
Speaker 1: The strengthening of Europe. Can it hold or are we
Speaker 1: going to see cracks because of various you know, domestic
Speaker 1: you know, right wing movements in Germany, populist movements in
Speaker 1: the UK, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So Europe is under an enormous amount of pressure from
Speaker 2: Russia through not just the war but sabotage propaganda campaigns.
Speaker 2: It's also now under pressure from US, as we've just discussed.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, from from Elon Musk who wants
Speaker 2: to fund uh anti European parties to some extent from
Speaker 2: the Trump administration. I mean, we'll see where that goes.
Speaker 2: And it's also you know, it's a because it's a
Speaker 2: it's a confederation. It's not a federation like we are.
Speaker 2: It's it's has you know, there has kind of permanent
Speaker 2: problems with getting everybody on board that don't ever really
Speaker 2: go away. Having said that, though, there's something in what
Speaker 2: you're saying in that if you're an investor from anywhere
Speaker 2: in the world. Actually, if you're from you know, South
Speaker 2: Korea or France or the United States, and you're looking
Speaker 2: around the world and you're looking for a place that's
Speaker 2: stable and safe and has predictable laws and predictable terrif
Speaker 2: rates and you know, respects contracts. I mean, maybe you
Speaker 2: would now start to choose Europe. Europe has a you know,
Speaker 2: Europe has a rule of law culture that is very
Speaker 2: strong and very deep and goes right to the heart
Speaker 2: of what the European Union is and what most modern
Speaker 2: European states are, and you might think this is this
Speaker 2: is the place to go. I mean, in Europe did
Speaker 2: become you know, they were so sure of their relationship
Speaker 2: with America, and they were so sure that America would
Speaker 2: defend them, and they were so sure that America was
Speaker 2: a friend and that shared their values.
Speaker 1: By the way, they were so sure. Weren't you so sure?
Speaker 1: Were it not too?
Speaker 2: I mean, actually I'm to European passport, so I should
Speaker 2: should say me too. So, you know, but they let
Speaker 2: a lot of things slide. They didn't develop their own
Speaker 2: tech industry because you know, they were fine with what
Speaker 2: the Americans were doing. They were you know, they have
Speaker 2: a defense industry, but they didn't care as much about it,
Speaker 2: and a lot of that has now shifted. If you
Speaker 2: go to any kind of confidence about anything in Europe,
Speaker 2: now it'll be about how do we build our own
Speaker 2: tech industry, how do we build a new weapons industry?
Speaker 2: And so you're about to see that transformation, I think,
Speaker 2: going across every European country.
Speaker 1: All right, let me get you to answer the question
Speaker 1: I get and I'm sure you get it all the time.
Speaker 1: What's your level of concern about the state of the
Speaker 1: American democracy?
Speaker 2: In my case, it's very high. I'm afraid it's very high.
Speaker 2: I mean it's not you know, I don't think any
Speaker 2: story is ever over and nothing is ever too late.
Speaker 2: But I do think that the combination of the use
Speaker 2: the way ICE is being used as a pilm paramilitary force,
Speaker 2: the attacks on you know, the president's constant attacks on journalism,
Speaker 2: the attacks on research and science and universities, the attempts
Speaker 2: to capture culture, the firing of the civil service, the
Speaker 2: attempts to destroy an independent civil service, you know, all
Speaker 2: those things packaged together. And this is for me, where
Speaker 2: I've written about these kinds of situations before, this is
Speaker 2: this looks to me like an assault on a democratic
Speaker 2: political system. And it also looks to me like it
Speaker 2: could be their way of preparing for at least to
Speaker 2: try to shape the midterms and in ways we haven't
Speaker 2: seen before.
Speaker 1: And I it's Hungary the closest sort of corollary here,
Speaker 1: like what happened in Hungary.
Speaker 2: I mean, actually in Hungary, the Hungry you know, the
Speaker 2: primetership of Hungary didn't move this fast, and he didn't
Speaker 2: assault institutions so quickly, and he didn't you know, the
Speaker 2: speed of change that we've seen here. I think it's
Speaker 2: pretty unprecedented. And there's some aspects of it that are unprecedented,
Speaker 2: like for example, the attack on science, on the scientific
Speaker 2: research system and on the vaccine research. I mean, there's
Speaker 2: there's no other The Chinese don't attack their own research institutions,
Speaker 2: you know, they value them. Neither do the Russians. I
Speaker 2: mean maybe they politicize them in some ways. It's a
Speaker 2: different subject. But there's some pieces of it that seem
Speaker 2: pretty radical to me and don't even have an echo
Speaker 2: in recent in our world history.
Speaker 1: Well, on that note, with Thanksgiving a week away, there's
Speaker 1: there's something to give thanks.
Speaker 2: For well, and you can discuss it with your with
Speaker 2: your relatives and cheer up the conversation. But let me
Speaker 2: let me end on that note. Actually, because again the
Speaker 2: reason I talk about this stuff and I'm sure this
Speaker 2: is true of you as well, because I want people
Speaker 2: to be aware of it and understand where it could go.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean it has to go that way, but
Speaker 2: the more people are aware, the more prepared they are
Speaker 2: to do something about.
Speaker 1: And the more people that are aware, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: when I have faith in our in the democracy. Eventually,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm like Churchill, right, We're going to exhaust
Speaker 1: all these other and let's just hope the system is
Speaker 1: still there for us to express our concern when the
Speaker 1: time I think of all it comes. That's where I
Speaker 1: where I get my optimism too. And apple bomb this
Speaker 1: appreciate the time.
Speaker 2: Thank you,