Interview Only w/ Anne Applebaum - Why Putin Won’t Stop, And Why Ukraine Won’t Settle - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
day regret. Their best selling out of Office gummies were
designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, booster your mood,
and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a
gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest

(00:20):
fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC
beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a
glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this,
I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I
prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that
believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes

(00:41):
in delicious HEMP derived THHC and CBD products, all designed
to boost your mood and simply help you unwine so
if you struggle to switch off at night, Soul also
has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply
help you get a better night's sleep, including their top
selling Sleepy Gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep.
So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to

(01:02):
Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
percent off your entire order, So go to getsold dot
Com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code.
That's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off. Well.
Joining me now is one of the journalists that I

(01:25):
always learned something from when I read her stuff in
The Atlantic and Apple Bomb, and in many ways I
know what I turned to her for and what I
read her most thoroughly about is whenever she's writing about
Central and Eastern European and what's going on in that
part of the world specifically. I want to timestamp this.

(01:46):
We are talking midday, Wednesday, November nineteenth, and it's important
to timestamp this because earlier this morning some news leak
that there is a supposed potential piece deal of soort
it's being circulated that was, I guess negotiated by the
President's personal on voice Steve Whitcoff, with an envoy of

(02:09):
the Russians, and it is now they are supposedly shopping
around to see if, in the words of the Axios reporting,
essentially can they jam the Ukrainians to take this deal.
Doesn't seem as if many people know about this deal,
and if you does have the whiff for what it's
worth of a leak in order to try to turn

(02:31):
the page on stories perhaps this administration doesn't like on
the front page. That's the cynic in me. But I'm
not going to make an apple bomb day with that
aspect of this story. And is also author of a
brand new book, Autocracy inc. Right, it's it's new ish.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
It came out in paperback this year, and it has
a new paper.

Speaker 1 (02:52):
Yes, yes, well, and I obviously want to talk about that,
But let's start with I mean, look, at any given day,
I would have asked you this, which is, you know,
will I don't feel like the war between Russian and
Ukraine is going to end even if there's a cease fire.
But I guess that's the question. Are we going to
have a period this year where there is no exchange

(03:15):
of fire between the Russians and the Ukrainians.

Speaker 2 (03:18):
So to be clear right now on this, you've just
time stamped the date one of the things that's been
true about this war since the very very beginning is
still true, and that is that Vladimir Putin has never
said that he will give up his original war aims,
and his original war aims remain the conquest or the

(03:41):
occupation or the or just the control of all of
Ukraine and the prevention of the existence of a Ukrainian
government that would have sovereignty and would be able to
make trade deals with the European Union, and would be
able to run the country the way they want to
run it. And so he's never said that, he's never
acknowledged the legitimous legitimacy of President Zelenski. He's never said

(04:06):
he wants to stop fighting. He's never acknowledged, as I said,
the right of Ukrainians to be Ukrainians. He's continued to
talk about them as if they were part of Russia.
And it seems to me that until he gives that up,
and it's and he would have to do it publicly,
I mean, he would have to do it in some
way where he says it, then it's very hard to

(04:28):
see how we get to the end of the war.
The war will end when the Russians stop fighting and
when they say we're not going to conquer all of Ukraine,
and then we can talk about ceasefires, or we can
talk about where the border's going to be, and there
are a lot of other things we could negotiate, but
we haven't reached that moment. What worries me about the

(04:49):
news that we heard today, aside from the piece of
it that you mentioned that it feels a little bit
like let's haul an old story out of the you know,
out of the trash can and put it back on
the front pages so that we can distract from stuff
we don't want to talk about. I mean, what what
worries me is the is the persistence of the two

(05:09):
main negotiators, and this is Steve Witkoff and Kirol Dimitriev.
We know who Witkof is. He's Trump's friend from the
real estate agency, was involved in Gaza. He's someone who
doesn't know Russia and Ukraine very well. He doesn't know
any of the history or any of the people.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
Well, I think he would now dispute that.

Speaker 2 (05:29):
He might he might now dispute it. But his main
interlocutor has been Kirol Dimitriev, who's the head important because
he's the head of the Russian Sovereign Wealth Fund, and
a lot of what Wikoff and Demetria have apparently been
talking about is not so much peace in Ukraine but
business deals that might be done between the United States
and Russia. And that's not really a very good starting

(05:51):
point as far as I'm concerned, or as anybody Ukrainians
are concerned, or the Europeans are concerned. That's not really
a good starting point for talking about how to end
the war, because because the thing that will in the
war is expressions of American European commitment to Ukraine. Well,
you know, Putin has to be persuaded that Ukraine will
be able to continue fighting for a long time, and

(06:11):
then maybe he will rethink his maynaim. And that's not
the role that would Cough is playing.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
I'm just going to cut to the chase here. If
I just think about this as game theory. But if
I'm Vladimir Putin, I have the most supportive, malleable American
president that I'll ever have, probably right, and he knows

(06:39):
he can, and he continues. It feels as if he
gets to put he has pushed Trump further closer and
closer to him. As this is dragged on, and now
they've negotiated without the Europeans and without the Ukrainians. Here
is there a point where where where Putin is overreaching

(07:03):
Here and even even Trump will realize he's being played.

Speaker 2 (07:08):
Trump seems to be resistant to the idea that he's
being played. He he continually it's it's and it's strange
because he's so easily offended by everybody else, by other leaders,
by journalists. But there are particular people. Actually, the Saudi
crown Prince was one of them. We saw that in

(07:31):
Washington also yesterday. Putin is another who seemed to have
a special status for him. And my guess is it's
because they're very rich, and he thinks that he can
do business deals with them, and he doesn't want them insulted,
and he doesn't seem to take what he doesn't take
their insults as as seriously as he does others. And

(07:51):
so it doesn't it doesn't feel like he's close to that.
I mean, he may be miscalculating in another way, though,
which is that you know, point in the war, the
Europeans are supporting the Ukrainians far more than the US is,
certainly in sheer monetary terms. They definitely are. And the
Ukrainians themselves, also, as the President would have put it,

(08:13):
have their own cards, they have their own weapons industry.
They made two million drones last year and they're going
to make four million drones this year, and they've been
using them to effectively hit Russian oil refineries and other
targets connected to the oil and gas industry. And you know,
it's not clear that Trump has control over this war.

(08:34):
In other words, a decision that he makes will end it.
So it's a it's an odd moment where we're still
playing the game putin talking to Trumpell and the war,
but there are so many other factors now that he
doesn't seem to be taking into account.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
According to this report in Xios, there was a sense
that and you could hear it that the that certain
members of the administration think that Zelenski's politically weak at
the moment because of the scandal that just sort of
forced out a few of his cabinet ministers, and that
they essentially can jam him. I know you've got particular

(09:10):
insight on that on the ground domestically with Ukraine. What
kind of what kind of political peril is Zelenski in
at the moment domestically.

Speaker 2 (09:20):
So remember that the reason there is a corruption scandal
right now in Ukraine is that the Ukrainian state, a
state institution, is investigating the operations of the state. In
other words, this is the Ukrainian government acting. And although
it has identified a couple of ministers who one or

(09:40):
two of whom are close to Zelenski, it's doing so
within the law. It's not as if, you know, the
IMF has come in and said you're corrupt, or even
Germans we have or something there or right, or the
US has. This is actually internal to the Ukrainian political
system and it's part of Ukrainian democracy and it's supported
by most Ukrainians. And so assuming that Zelenski you know,

(10:06):
doesn't try to block it or stop it, and so
far he hasn't. So far, he done nothing like that.
He said, you know, let the investigations continue. Assuming that continues,
then he may emerge more strongly from this scandal actually
because he would then be seen to have presided over
something that Ukrainians want, which is a kind of clean government. This,

(10:30):
by the way, the nature of the scandal is not
to do with US or European AID, so at least
not as far as we know so far. It's to
do with kickbacks on contracts, which is more which is
more internal.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
I hate to call it this. It felt like running
the mill government graft when I read the story, right, like,
you're like, oh, well, this happens pretty much everywhere around
the world. There's always somebody's skimming something off the top
or are getting up.

Speaker 3 (10:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
And also, of course it's something that you can't imagine
in cash Betel's FBI doing like you can't imagine this
happening now in the United States. So cash Betel's FBI
investigating Trump administration deals for example, or or or Trump
cabinet members. So this is evidence of the strength of
Ukrainian democracy and of transparency and so on. So you

(11:18):
have to you have to keep that in mind.

Speaker 1 (11:21):
Do you think it's a miscalculation that there's a moment
to jam Zelensky here that the US may be misreading
the situation.

Speaker 2 (11:30):
So given that we I don't know any of the details,
well none of us, right, I mean, the Ukrainians you know,
have no interest in ending the war, or I should
say that differently, they have they have no interest in
how creating a ceasefire for the sake of a ceasefire.
In other words, having a ceasefire that will just kick

(11:51):
the problem down the road a little while, give the
Russians time to rearm h and start the war again.
That's not something that they find use. I mean, there's
a there's a problem actually with the way wit Coff
and Trump negotiate, which is that they want a big headline,
just like the same thing has just happened in Gaza,
big headline, end of the war, ceasefire, hostages returned forgetting

(12:12):
that loss of hostages were returned by the Biden administration
as well. And then actually there is no solution, and
we don't know how the war is going to end,
and actually the fighting is continuing in new ways, and
I think the Ukrainians are afraid of that. And there,
you know, so there's no you know, there's you know,
unless they're going to be offered something that has some substance,

(12:34):
in other words, stop fighting right now, which, by the way,
they've said they would do, stop fighting right now on
the current you know, on the current battle front lines. Uh.
And you know, then we will ensure that we reinforce
you and then we can begin negotiations with some kind
of guarantee that the Russians won't use this uh to

(12:55):
to start fighting again. I mean, unless there's something that
offers them something real, then I don't see how you
can jam them. As I said, they have their own agency,
they have their own sources of.

Speaker 1 (13:05):
Money, and at this point the war itself has changed
in that it's not using as many It's a drone
war more or less.

Speaker 2 (13:16):
Right now, this is a really important point, and I
don't think it's really understood by most Americans. This is
a completely different kind of war from the kind of
war it was at the beginning, and it's also a
different kind of war from any war in history. So
there is a there is a kind of ten twenty
miles on either side of the front line which are

(13:37):
now completely transparent. Everything can be seen because there's so
many drones in the air, and that means that old
kinds of military tactics whereby you know you did a
secret raid or you've got are all visible. And it's
very very hard in that situation to move forward because
as soon as any Russian trucks or tanks or people

(13:57):
move into this visible zone, the Ukrainians can hit them.
And so the tactics of the war have been about
electronic warfare, how the drones are being used, and the
Ukrainians also now have a system whereby the drone industry
is connected directly to the front line, so as the
situation changes on the front line, they radio back to

(14:18):
the factory not far away, and they change the way
the drone is being built, or they change the software
whatever needs to be changed. So there's a kind of
constant updating of the technology, which I mean is also
the speed of it is something that I don't think
we've seen anywhere else before.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
So it's such a strange war. And you're right, I've
been trying to get my I had Dexter focus on
recently and he was he had just been there trying
to explain and how frankly, how the Pentagon now is
studying rights, everyone is studying what's happening here, because obviously
warfare is going to change with the with the advent
of drones. But that so if you if you need

(14:59):
fewer human soldiers, but there are now more defenseless civilians,
and both the Ukrainians and the Russians are using their
drones to go to try to write I assume the
new pressure points are civilian population.

Speaker 2 (15:16):
So what the Russians are doing is hitting civilian cities
very very hard. Actually, there was one this morning in Tarnopol.
There was a something like seven miss cruise missiles that
may not be precise, but a very strong attack hit
a Ukrainian city that's pretty far from the front line. Actually,
it's kind of in western Ukraine. And that's how the

(15:38):
Russians have been seeking to terrorize and demoralize Ukrainians. Ukrainians
are doing something different, which is the Ukrainians, as I said,
are hitting Russian energy export infrastructure and oil refineries, and
they're doing so pretty effectively, so much so that they've
taken out about a quarter of Russia's refining capability. In

(15:59):
the recent they hit a very important export port on
the Black Sea, which is where oil goes through. And
so their calculation is that the Russians don't care about men,
you know, so they don't care how many people die,
they're not bothered by that. But they do care about money,
as one put it to me, and so they're trying
to you know, their effort to stop the war is

(16:20):
going that way. You know, they need to make the
cost of the war so high that, as I said,
the point being that Putin changes his mind and you know,
and begins to think it's unwinnable or it's not worth winning,
which is, by the way, how colonial wars, which is
what this is, usually end, is that the capital decides

(16:41):
that it's not worth it anymore and the colony is
allowed to go. If you look at the Algerian French
War in Algeria or something like that.

Speaker 1 (16:49):
Look, you can't go a week without seeing a headline
whether it's in the Financial Times, but somewhere in Europe
that does try to some reporting out of Russia. I mean,
the economy seems to be in just wretched shape in
Russia that all of this is finally having is taking

(17:10):
a toll. I mean, at what point does domestic pressure
play a role here?

Speaker 2 (17:17):
Well, Putin has constructed his political system so that he
feels very little domestic pressure. You know, there isn't a
pathway for domestic pressure to express itself.

Speaker 1 (17:27):
Sure, but if people are not happy with that, the
economy they start to get I mean it feels as
if they're talking more and more. Put it that way,
because there's more reports about this.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
People are talking more, people are angrier. Actually, there isn't
real polling in Russia, but there are some opposition groups
who do kind of measuring of sentiment online and that
certainly swung against the war. I mean. Another kind of
grim statistic is the number of people who commit suicide
in the Russian lead mysteriously or fall out of windows

(17:59):
or somehow or other disappear. And that number has also
been pretty high recently, And so that means that those
are people who are expressing in their circles some kind
of descent or who are otherwise not going along with
the program. And that's evidence that there is that You're right,
there is this pressure. I mean, just the question is

(18:20):
when at what point it really reaches Putin enforces this.
You know, it's actually a political change, a change in
language and rhetoric that either he has to make or
his successful.

Speaker 1 (18:36):
There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like
there's a reason. Morgan and Morgan is America's largest injury
law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered
twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.
It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing
just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,

(18:59):
in Pennsylvania, client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which
was a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance
company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty
thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
So with more than one thousand lawyers across the country,
they know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
you need a lawyer, you need somebody to get your back.

(19:20):
Check out for the People dot com, Slash podcast or
now Pound Law, Pound five to nine law on your
cell phone. And remember all law firms are not the same.
So check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free
unless they win the killing off Progosion, I mean Putin

(19:41):
was probably saved himself on that because there is nobody
that can sort of challenge him internally if someone chose to,
but he.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
Could have well Progosion. Yeah, Progosion had a real constituency
and his constituency if you for those who don't remember,
he was the lead leader of the Wagner group who
staged this extraordinary which was a kind of paramilitary mercenarif
that's right. He had originally been a chef. He ran
actually he was the one who yeah, he was the

(20:10):
one who ran the online influence operations during the twenty
sixteen election here so, and he then became the head
of this mercenary force and he had a real constituency,
so the mercenaries were very devoted to him. So he
actually had armed men who were on his side and
who were becoming at that time very critical of the

(20:31):
war and of why it was being fought and why
it had started in a lot I mean speaking of corruption,
the enormous amount of corruption around defense in the military there,
and so he expressed it by making this critical statements.
And then he launched this march on Moscow that he boarded,
and then afterwards he had a plane accident. So he

(20:54):
was he was an example of someone who had a constituency.
And the problem with other opponents of Putin that they
don't have that they don't have, you know, a team
of armed guys that they can count on who might
who might scare the president. But you know, it's also
one of the lessons of Russian history, and I have
written about it my whole life, almost is that, you know,

(21:18):
the regime seems inevitable and eternal until the day it falls.
I mean, if you look at the Zaris.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
You're describing bankruptcy, right, you know, first it's slowly and
then all of a sudden it's quickly.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
But you look at the way the Czarist Revolution happened,
you know that was totally unexpected. If you look at
the way the Soviet Union fell months before that, nobody
thought that was going to happen, you know. And so
I'm always hesitant to make predictions about about Putins Russia,
to say that it's you know, it's going to last
forever or it's going to end next week, because the

(21:52):
system is very strong in that he controls all these
levers of power, He controls the media, the military, the
of me and so on. But it's also very weak
in that once his authority is questioned, it's not clear
who comes next. So there's no there's no successor there's
no succession process. There's no pollt bureau, you know there

(22:16):
you know, so as soon as something happens to him
or there's lacks of faith in him, then you might
get changed very quickly.

Speaker 1 (22:23):
How much does he need China right now? And is
there a point where China is just like it's not
worth the cost.

Speaker 2 (22:31):
He is totally dependent on China. He's dependent on China
for trade, He's dependent on China as the market for
oil and gas. He's dependent on China politically. The Chinese
have stood up for him in various international fora and
so on. The Chinese seem to be defending me, even
though I think they had They were they were surprised

(22:53):
by the invasion of Ukraine, and they were also I
think somewhat horrified by it. I mean, they had investments
in Ukraine and they'd students there and so on. But
they the Chinese have stuck with the Russians, and I
think will stick with them because they see the war
as a way of weakening the United States. They see
it as a tool that they can use to weaken

(23:15):
the perception of American power, maybe to weaken the American
European Alliance, which actually is happening pretty effectively without them.

Speaker 1 (23:23):
But I was just going to say President Trump is
going on on his own trying to weaken this alliance.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
Yeah, and of course that's also a mistake because the again,
the way the war ends is through American European solidarity.
You know, make make Putin think it will never crack,
stick with the stick with the Ukrainians, and then you know,
wait for the moment of wait for the shift. But
the you know, this constant movement back and forth, this

(23:51):
attempt to do business deals and so on, all of
that gives Putin the feeling that if he just keeps going,
he'll win. And he has, as I said, as we've
just said, he has allies. Not only that, he has
North Korean allies. North Koreans have sent troops to Ukraine.
He has Iranian allies. They've sent drones to Ukraine. You know,
there is a this being the topic of the book

(24:13):
we discussed, I mean, this is the this is the
there is a kind of network of the autocratic world,
and you can see it really most clearly there.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
I know, you have particular insight into Poland, and there
was another sort of there are always these Did Russia
do this on purpose? I don't think there's ever been
an accidental incursion into Poland during this war. I'm curious,
but what do they think They're accomplishing here, because it
feels as if the last thing they should want is
to sort of steal the resolve of Eastern Europeans.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
Now, well, so you're talking about two things. I mean,
there was this drone incursion into Poland. And also in
the last few.

Speaker 1 (24:53):
Days there blew up a train line, right a train track.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
There was a train from Warsaw to Lublin that goes to.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
And they assume, and I know that the polesy essentially
said they assume it's Russian sabotage, but they hadn't.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
I think they know who it is already as far
as I know. I mean, there's one little nuance which
is interesting, was it looks like what the perpetrators were
Ukrainians originally originally Ukrainian citizens who were employed and paid
by Russia and seemed to have escaped into Beilarus. And
so I think the purpose of it, the purpose of

(25:27):
this is always to you know, the Russians think a
lot about creating antagonism. You know, they want there to
be antagonism between Warsan Kiev. You know, they want to
create suspicion of Ukrainians in Poland. They may also have
the scary thing about the train story is that they
may have been trying to kill a lot of people

(25:47):
because if the bomb didn't go off the way it
was supposed to go off. It it had done, it
might have knocked a train over an embankment and hundreds
of at least hundreds of people might have died. So
I think they're looking for some kind of spectacular scene.
And you know, their calculation is that if we do
enough stuff like that will scare people, you know, will

(26:11):
frighten them into not supporting Ukraine, or will make people
stay home. I mean, as you just observe, the Russians
are good at stuff like that, but they're also not
so good sometimes at understanding how it will affect people.
And I think the impact in Poland is going to
be the opposite. I mean, the more you bring the
war home to people in Poland, or in Germany where
it's similar there have been similar incidents, or in Scandinavia

(26:32):
where there have been some drone drones who threatened the
Copenhagen airport, the more you do that, the more you
inspire European populations to want to defend Ukraine. And I
should say again, European spending is going up. It's probably
the main conversation in Brussels right now at EU meetings.
Big story in Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, the UK, not everywhere

(26:55):
in Europe, but a lot of European countries are taking
it really seriously.

Speaker 1 (26:59):
Is all the U US aid now to Ukraine indirect?
It all goes through NATO. Basically NATO buys from US
and then it moves there. What what? How? How is
usaid into Ukraine working these days? What's best?

Speaker 2 (27:12):
So I don't I don't know. There there was still
some aid that was purchased under the Biden administration that
was still coming into Ukraine, and I don't know at
this exact second the status of it, whether it's all
finished or whether there's some still going in. There have
been some big European purchases, and the US has two
things that nobody else has. One of them is patriot missiles,

(27:35):
which defend which can be used to defend Ukrainian cities.
So this is this is about defending civilians from missile attack,
and the US just has more of them and they
work better, and that's something the Ukrainians are trying to buy.
And I think the Europeans have done deals to buy.
And the other thing the US has is intelligence, the
real time satellite intelligence, and that is beginning to be replaced,

(27:59):
but might not be totally. But as I said, the
bulk of money is coming from Europe to pay for
all this.

Speaker 1 (28:06):
Because I'll be honest, my assumption that the most likely
scenario here in the regards to this which cough negotiated
proposal to end the war, is that Trump will use
if the Ukrainians say no, right, you know, Europeans sort
of poo poo it that that's what he'll use to

(28:28):
basically say, well, I'm out, I'm walking away, the US
walks away, What does that look like?

Speaker 2 (28:37):
So it depends what walk away means walking away, leaving
in place. The intelligence cooperation is bad, but maybe not
that bad, you know. It then puts the Europeans as
the main ally of Ukraine and we can stop having
this pretense that America negotiating with Russia will solve the problem.

(28:59):
Also though, you know, I think this was Trump's goal
before and Zelenski leave, to find an excuse to leave,
and actually it was. It was when Zelenski agreed as
only he said he would accept an immediate ceasefire if
there were.

Speaker 1 (29:13):
To be won, and then Trump he knew that Trump
had to go.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Back, right, And it's it's actually once again, it's the
Russians who don't want to cease fire because the Russians
still think they're going to win, you know. And so
if Zelensky continues to repeat that that he'll accept a ceasefire,
maybe maybe he can ward this off.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
Is it your suspicion, then then that probably what we
haven't seen the deal. But if what the Russians have
agreed to they know the Ukrainians will reject, and that
they they know one of the outcomes could be Trump
just walking away, which is actually they don't care well
that or do they want the Americans still in the loop.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
So what the Russians were asking for before was for
Ukrainian territory that they haven't conquered. They were they were
demanding possession of some land that they have never that
they've never managed to uh to occupy. I remember, the
Russians have been fighting in Dunbass and Eastern Ukraine. They've
been fighting for more than ten years, and they still

(30:14):
haven't managed to conquer all the territory they claim. And
so and that of course is unacceptable. Zelenski can't give
away territory for no reason and in exchange for nothing
that they were they weren't the Russians weren't offering any
other kind of concession. Maybe there's some other maybe there's
some twist to it now that that I that I
don't know about. But if that's still what they're saying,

(30:38):
that will you know, we want this extra land and
we want Ukraine to disarm. That was the other piece
of it. We want to we want to demilitarized Ukraine.
Then Ukrainians can accept that, because that's just an invitation
to the Russians to take territory they haven't conquered, and
then to take over Ukraine next year, you know, or
the year after and so again. Unless unless there's a

(31:02):
deal that reflects some kind of you know, some kind
of acceptance that Ukraine has a right to exist, Zelensky
can't accept it. And by the way, and I don't
I don't think anybody would be surprised by the in
other words of Putin's I if Trump says I have
this great deal, and you know, Ukrainians are supposed to
disarm and give away their territory, I don't think that

(31:24):
even that. Most Americans would say, well, that sounds fantastic.
Why aren't the Ukrainians going along with it?

Speaker 1 (31:31):
But it's your your your suspicion is is it still
the same as it was before? That Trump's looking for
a way just to walk away from this issue.

Speaker 3 (31:41):
I mean, I think he probably authentically wants the thing
he got in Gaza, which is some big announcement that
people think is a peace plan or a piece deal,
which isn't really a peace deal, just as the plan
in Gaza wasn't a peace deal, wasn't a.

Speaker 2 (31:56):
Complete peace deal. He wants. You know, what Trump is
always interested in is winning the moment or whatever moment
he's in, whatever conversation he's in, he wants to emerge.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
I would say he's always buying time to whatever it is.
He's always pushing off hard decisions.

Speaker 2 (32:13):
But he also doesn't he doesn't have a long term strategy.
He doesn't have an idea for how Ukraine and Russia
will co exist over the next ten years, or he
doesn't think about what how the rest of the world
would perceive his abandonment of Ukraine, what that would do
to other kinds of American interests. You know, he doesn't
think in that global way. He only thinks like, how

(32:36):
do I win? How do I how do I emerge
from this?

Speaker 1 (32:39):
Well, you know, it's funny you say that, because I've
been thinking about the Venezuela issue and sort of how
we're going about this and the message that China is
taking from it, and the message that Russia is taking
from it. Yep, right, this is quote unquote our hemisphere
and we're dealing with what we say is a problem.

(33:03):
So they even make a law enforcement issue, right that
this is a this is a creating a national security
sort of pretext, I guess. But you know what we're
doing with Venezuela, what would Putin say, wouldn't he argue?

(33:24):
It's no different than what he's trying to do in Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (33:27):
Of course, it's also almost an exact blueprint of what
the Chinese could do in Taiwan. I mean, it's very
very similar. I mean this is my I even a
lot of qualms about Venezuela, although I think it's you know,
that's a it is a very ugly regime, and I
know lots of people who would like it to fall.

Speaker 1 (33:44):
Well, look, I'm a Miami. I grew up in Miami,
and I'm very empathetic. I got a lot of Venezuelan friends,
and I I if the administration we're making a democracy
case what they're doing, I would feel better. But the
fact that they're not, and they're basically lying about the
situation in order to do this, You're just like, this

(34:06):
is you're going about this the wrong way for an
outcome that maybe many people would like to see, but
this is not the time for an ends justifies the
means moment.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
No, And as you say, it sets a terrible example.
You know, it says we get to this country is
close to us, and so we get to do whatever
we want, and we can do extra judicial murders of
what might be drug traffickers or might be fishermen, and
we can park lots of boats, you know, big ships

(34:39):
around the coast, and we can threaten you know, we
can issue threats and we do it with impunity because
it's our hemisphere. And this is exactly the argument that
Putin has made about Ukraine. I mean, with nuances. It's
very similar to what the Chinese could start to say
about Taiwan, and Taiwan threatens our national security because we
say so, you know, right, and it's it's really profoundly

(35:04):
undermining too, the the you know, the the idea really
that small countries have rights, that borders have meaning that
you know that there is some kind of international system
that people that people have respect for. I mean, it's
been deteriorating for a long time, and you can you

(35:25):
can you can find previous American presidents who also undermined it.
But this is, this feels like something new, especially in
the context of the war in Ukraine and of China's
threats to.

Speaker 1 (35:35):
Taiwan in your book obviously you were just referring to
it before that there is you know that there now
really is a network of these autocrats. We had the
visit what is Saudi Arabia? Is it an autocracy? I

(35:57):
call you know, I don't believe in any monarchies. I
believe there's either benevolent dictators or malevolent dictators. And the
benevolent ones we call king and the malevolent ones we
call something else. But that's my sort of that's my spin.
But where do you put Saudi Arabia on this? And
because it feels like we really and this wasn't just

(36:20):
the Trump administration, the Biden administration. I mean, I've had
this conversation with Jake Sullivan everything about we'd be like, look,
we've got to tolerate some of this from the Saudis
because we need them on our side. We don't want
them on China side. What do you put Saudi Arabian?
What is our CosIng back up to them? Do in
your thinking about where autocracy is going?

Speaker 2 (36:43):
So Saudi Arabia is Saudi Araba like the other Golf states,
is a little different from the Russia, China, Iran, North
Korea nexus in that, at least for the moment, their
primary interest isn't undermining US, okay, and that is the
primary interest of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela Bilarus.

(37:08):
And so they they are different. They are of course
they're an autocracy. Autocracy and monarchy goes under the is
a sub category of autocracy. They're an autocracy in that
it's a state where they rule without the leader's rule,
without checks and balances. There's no transparency, there's no there's
no real opposition, there's you know, people don't have rights

(37:29):
and they're above all. There's no rule of law, there's
rule by law, which means the law is with the
king says laws, and it can change. And at the
moment he's a little bit more benevolent than he than
some previous Saudi leaders were, but that could change in
a heartbeat if he feels like it. And so it's
it's so, that's the kind of political system it is.
I mean, it's been one that has been willing to

(37:51):
cooperate with us, and that's you know, there are reasons
why it's useful to talk to them. You know, they
they're they're they're constructive things that the Saudis can do.
And as I said, they don't have a either a
military apparatus or a you know, or a propaganda apparatus

(38:11):
that's aimed at us, which most of the other countries do.
So I don't know, I don't object to American presidents
talking to Saudi leaders. I think what I find troublesome
about Trump's relationships is, first of all, his family's enormous
conflicts of interest there. You know, his sons are doing

(38:31):
deal with Saudi company building hotels.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
A hallmark of a budding autocracy is when the family
members of the leader are benefiting financially. I mean, I
don't look, I don't want to go down the road
that we're there. I mean, I think it's the Republican
Party right now that's under this sort of control. It's
not yet spread everywhere in this country, but it's certainly
the beginnings of it.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
Oh No, it's it's a it's a hallmark and the
personalization of power. The fact that you have to offer
a plane or a gold bar, as some Swiss businessman
did a few days ago to the President in order
to work create the atmosphere for your trade deal or
your negotiation.

Speaker 1 (39:12):
I mean, let me go back to President, let me
go back to Cotter. They gave a plane, and now
they get non they get they get basically NATO like
security agreement from the United States, I mean, which is
apparently what the Saudis are now asking for. And it
is amazing that we gave Cotter a deal that we

(39:34):
had yet to give the Saudis. And if I were
the Sadi's I feel kind of put off by that,
given given what the Saudis have meant to the United
States over the years versus what Cutter has and hasn't.

Speaker 2 (39:46):
I mean, and think, I think when when When the
leader of Saudi Arabia walks into the Oval office and
seees Donald Trump, what does he think he thinks I
own this guy?

Speaker 3 (39:55):
You know, I'm I'm I'm.

Speaker 2 (39:57):
Paying for the golf tournament that went on his golf course.
I've given I've put a you know, a billion dollar,
two billion dollar, I think investment into his son in
law's company. I'm doing business with his family all over
the Middle East, and who knows what else. I mean,
a lot of Trump's finances, especially the crypto companies, are
are pretty opaque. We don't really know who's paying into

(40:19):
them and how and he and he does need something
from the United States. I mean, Saudi is a country
that is very wealthy. Obviously they have all this oil,
but it's also very weak, doesn't have much of a military.
It can't really defend itself, and so you know, they're
in they they have a huge interest in buying off
the American president and getting something, and you know, getting

(40:43):
F thirty five's or getting weapons from the insance. I mean,
the question here, and this is this is you know,
returning to your original point, is what do the American
people get out of it? Why are what do we
get out of this relationship with Saudi Arabia. You know,
the you know is the when the American president.

Speaker 1 (41:00):
They argue stability in the Middle East? I mean, is
that is that the best we can offer the American public?

Speaker 2 (41:05):
I mean, if that's the point, I mean, that's great,
and I would support that point. If the point is
to enrich the president's family, if that's what we're getting
out of it, then I then I'm more worried. So
there's always a question with Donald Trump, and it's exactly
the same as his negotiations with the Russians. Why is
he doing this? Is he doing it for personal benefit,

(41:25):
for his family's benefit, or is it in some broader interests?
And I just for all the flaws of many previous
American presidents, I can't think of one who negotiated abroad,
you know, about whom there was that question is who's
who's benefiting?

Speaker 1 (41:42):
And that's that previous president way waited to suck up
to the Saudi's after they left office for library friends, right,
Like I mean, I hate to be that cytical about it,
but it was sort of there was almost like an
agreed upon hey don't don't don't use your contacts there
until after you leave to enrich yourself. I mean, I
hate to be that senecal.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
Sure, but you did you know, even the worst I
don't know, you know, even even the Bush family who
had oil interests. I mean, when George w or his
father were negotiating with the Saudis, were they thinking about
specific business deals that are that are being negotiated right
now and that I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (42:20):
This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought to you
by Wildgrain. Wild Grain is the first bake from Frozen
subscription box for arteasonal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas,
plus all items conveniently bake in twenty five minutes or less.
Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients
you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can

(42:44):
be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants.
Wildgrain's boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal and
limited time in products for you to enjoy. In addition
to their classic box, they now feature a gluten free
box and a plant based box. Checked out the gluten
free box and let me tell you they have a
gluten free sourdough bread.

Speaker 3 (43:05):
It is.

Speaker 1 (43:06):
We got two loads of it and we've done one
loaf already. It's a cranberry and almond sourdough bread. It's
like the best raisin bread you've ever had, except it's
not raisin. It's great. You're gonna love this. You know
it's hit or miss if you mess around in the
gluten free bread world. This is a hit. Seriously. I
was impressed, so look for a limited time. Wild Grain

(43:27):
is offering our listeners thirty dollars off your first box
plus free croissants in every box when you go to
wildgrain dot com slash podcast. To start your subscription, follow
these instructions. Free crossants in every box, thirty dollars off
your first box when you go to wildgrain dot com
slash podcast. That's wildgrain dot com slash podcast. Or simply
use the promo code podcast at checkout. Always use the code,

(43:51):
get the discount. I'm telling you it's excellent, excellent bread.
Where are you today When it comes to the fight
between democracy and autocracy around the world, I know it
feels as if democracy is in retreats, but it's not

(44:12):
as if autocracy is succeeding either. Right. I mean, you
do have a Chinese economy that is not great, that
youth unemployment. So you know this idea that whose system
is more stable, whose system is better. It's not as
if these autocratic systems are having a golden age themselves.

Speaker 2 (44:33):
I would actually describe the contest from the beginning a
little differently in that, Okay, this is not so much
a contest between autocracies and democracies, because there are lots
of different kinds. We just talked about. The Saudis and
the Russians are quite different. It's on. This is really
a contest between This is a war of ideas, of

(44:53):
autocratic ideas against the ideas of liberal democracy, and that
contest is taking place inside every country on the planet,
including ours. So it happened. I mean, most European countries,
even if they're formal democracies, they have autocratic political parties
or movements. And by the same token, a lot of

(45:15):
dictatorships have within them, you know, dissidents or or people
who would like to end.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
With the woman who just won the Nobel Peace Prize
in Venezuela. Right, absolutely, she's a great excaple.

Speaker 2 (45:26):
Yeah, interviewed her several times. Actually, in Venezuela, the Democratic
opposition won an election through this extraordinary feet of organization
and then proved that they want it. So, you know,
so this is a this is a war of ideas.
You know, do we want to live in political systems
where one person or party or family controls you know,
the media with no checks and balances, uh, you know,

(45:50):
decides how the legal system works, doesn't offer people rights?
Or do we want to live in a system where
there are rights and there are independent institutions in dependent
of the of the of the ruling party or the leader.
And you know, and it does feel right now, I think,
especially because of what's going on in the United States,
like the democratic arguments are losing. But there's also no

(46:14):
inevitability that you know, history doesn't work like that that
you know, the you know, everything's swinging in one direction,
and that's how it's going to go. You know, the
fight is on, and the fight is inside our country,
it's inside Russia, it's inside Ukraine. You know, the and
the and the and the question is really whose arguments

(46:36):
are going to win? And how do we and how
do we express that victory.

Speaker 1 (46:42):
What do you think about the role that silicon Valley
is now sort of playing a sort of infusing itself
with this government in ways that we've not seen an
industry do arghiabli in one hundred years, right, not since
the industrialists of the of the early twentieth century. And
you know, I think about this, you know, the philosophies

(47:02):
that we've heard Peter Tiele espouse. I mean, you know,
this is somebody who does not believe in liberal democracy.
He's very clear about it, right. I guess we should
be happy that he's honest about it. But you know,
I think Peter Peter Tiel is one of the most
dangerous Americans in the country with his ideas and wealth
combined and the access to power that he has already purchased.

(47:25):
What should we be concerned? I mean, I sort of
have faith in our democracy that the pitchforks are coming
for Silicon Valley and they don't fully I don't think
they fully see it yet, and that you know, we're
going to have a Teddy Roosevelt moment here, But how
do you see the role they're playing in this sort
of competition between democracy and hutocracy.

Speaker 2 (47:48):
So Silicon Valley has a kind of power that no
one has had before. And this is the power to
influence I wouldn't say control, but influence and manipulate feelings
and emotions and information. And they you know, they have
these tools, you know, the you know, the algorithms that.

Speaker 1 (48:09):
Directly at times we're talking about science fiction sometimes with them.
But yes, anyway, no, I mean, but but.

Speaker 2 (48:14):
You know, most people in America, if you're you know,
if you're not someone who looks for news in other words,
you click on the New York Times website or or
even the Fox News website. If you're someone who just
passively receives news, which I think is most people, then
they decide what you see. You know, then your your
preference for one kind of washing powder or one kind

(48:39):
of shampoo might lead you to receive a political ad
that people who like that kind of washing powder or
shampoo get, or or or a clip or you know,
or somebody expounding something on Instagram. And so we haven't
never hed so to their their decisions are really shaping
what it is that people see and perceive. And that

(49:00):
does mean that they have, you know, something that I
don't think anybody has had before. And actually in real autocracy,
so in China, that power is controlled by the state,
and the state, you know, they they they own that power.
And in Russia they're seeking to own that power that
Russians haven't. Their system is not as sophisticated as to Chinese,
but they are trying to cut people off from Western

(49:22):
Western social media. And in our country, you know, the
idea was originally that this was a power that would
be given to private companies and it would be therefore benign,
and it would be divided between several groups, and it
wouldn't you know, we would we would take care of
it that way. And I think we're failing. I mean,
and it's important that you mentioned Teddy Roosevelt because what
did he do He broke up monopolies or he spoke

(49:45):
about they were called trusts them And we are at
a point where the there is time to ask whether
these companies have too much power and whether they're truly
patriotic companies. Do they want the he health of American democracy?
Are they dedicated to making sure that we had better

(50:05):
debates and better consensus and better information. I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (50:08):
I had an interesting conversation with a recently retired general
who sort of had a lot of insight in the
first Trump term, and he expressed a concern. He says,
you know, with the development of nuclear power, the government
essentially was infused in the process in many ways. The

(50:30):
Manhattan Project, right, it was a creation of the government.
The development of the Internet, you know, came out of
the Defense Department. He said, we're making this massive technological
shift in our society where we have completely outsourced it
to the private sector. That is not the way any
of the other major technological shifts that altered the course

(50:54):
of this country on technology has ever happened. And that
spress like that is the he thought that was such
a higher risk, and we haven't fully appreciated concentrating all
that power into this private entity.

Speaker 2 (51:11):
The Atlantic had a good article recently about NASA and
the difference between NASA and SpaceX. And NASA, which was our,
you know, premier space institution in the United States, was
people want to work for it because they were public
servants and they were doing something on behalf of the
United States of America. And SpaceX is a private company

(51:32):
owned by Elon Musk, and people work in it to
make money or there and the primary goal is not
the public interest. The primary goal is to earn money
for shareholders, and that is different.

Speaker 1 (51:49):
What is you know, how much of a how much
of a danger do you think we are in domestically
because of this kind of concentrated power. Looks on the outside,
like Silicon Valley decided they made a bet and they said, well,
Trump's more malleable than the Democrats on this one, so

(52:09):
we're going to go all in here, you know. And
it was the crypto crowd plus the AI crowd and
they and they've pretty much gotten carte blanche from this administration.
That seems to be step one of a scary development.

Speaker 2 (52:24):
Look, I think what they're looking for is not to
be regulated, you know, they're looking for they don't want
any any anything cramping their power, any any trust law,
any other kind of law, anything that would question the trust.

Speaker 1 (52:38):
Their development of social media really really worked out well
without regulation. So sure, let's let them do this.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
No No, But they know there's backlash, They've heard it,
and they're what they're now doing is trying to stave
off the consequences. And it's pretty pernicious. So it's not
just here. Uh, they're also working pretty hard in Europe
to make sure that they aren't regulated by the European Union,
which is probably the only institution left on the planet
that could regulate them. And they're even to the extent

(53:10):
of Musk supporting anti European political parties in Germany and elsewhere.
So they're very conscious of this, the coming backlash, and
they're preparing very hard to prevent anything from hampering their power.
And I think it's something that would be very useful
for more Americans to be aware of.

Speaker 1 (53:29):
Yeah, look, I think I actually have I do believe
the twenty twenty eight presidential election is going to be
more centered on this, you know, be or of AI
job displacement, all of that is going to sort of
concentrate I think the conversation a little bit on this,
but let me get you out of here. Actually some
on Europe, which really sort of would go back the

(53:50):
unintended consequence of Donald Trump's quasi isolationism. I say quasi
because it's not really it's more transactionalism. But let's say
the the perception of the pullback, this feels like it's
made Europe stronger than ever and that the EU is
now a thing, and that native that there is that Europe.

(54:12):
You know that that it was this has been a
wake up call to Europe and that there is a
as you said, look, Europe may be able to just
keep supporting Ukraine regardless of what the United States decides.
The strengthening of Europe. Can it hold or are we
going to see cracks because of various you know, domestic
you know, right wing movements in Germany, populist movements in

(54:36):
the UK, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (54:38):
So Europe is under an enormous amount of pressure from
Russia through not just the war but sabotage propaganda campaigns.
It's also now under pressure from US, as we've just discussed.
I mean, you know, from from Elon Musk who wants
to fund uh anti European parties to some extent from

(55:00):
the Trump administration. I mean, we'll see where that goes.
And it's also you know, it's a because it's a
it's a confederation. It's not a federation like we are.
It's it's has you know, there has kind of permanent
problems with getting everybody on board that don't ever really
go away. Having said that, though, there's something in what

(55:21):
you're saying in that if you're an investor from anywhere
in the world. Actually, if you're from you know, South
Korea or France or the United States, and you're looking
around the world and you're looking for a place that's
stable and safe and has predictable laws and predictable terrif
rates and you know, respects contracts. I mean, maybe you

(55:42):
would now start to choose Europe. Europe has a you know,
Europe has a rule of law culture that is very
strong and very deep and goes right to the heart
of what the European Union is and what most modern
European states are, and you might think this is this
is the place to go. I mean, in Europe did
become you know, they were so sure of their relationship

(56:07):
with America, and they were so sure that America would
defend them, and they were so sure that America was
a friend and that shared their values.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
By the way, they were so sure. Weren't you so sure?
Were it not too?

Speaker 2 (56:16):
I mean, actually I'm to European passport, so I should
should say me too. So, you know, but they let
a lot of things slide. They didn't develop their own
tech industry because you know, they were fine with what
the Americans were doing. They were you know, they have
a defense industry, but they didn't care as much about it,
and a lot of that has now shifted. If you

(56:36):
go to any kind of confidence about anything in Europe,
now it'll be about how do we build our own
tech industry, how do we build a new weapons industry?
And so you're about to see that transformation, I think,
going across every European country.

Speaker 1 (56:50):
All right, let me get you to answer the question
I get and I'm sure you get it all the time.
What's your level of concern about the state of the
American democracy?

Speaker 2 (57:00):
In my case, it's very high. I'm afraid it's very high.
I mean it's not you know, I don't think any
story is ever over and nothing is ever too late.
But I do think that the combination of the use
the way ICE is being used as a pilm paramilitary force,
the attacks on you know, the president's constant attacks on journalism,

(57:27):
the attacks on research and science and universities, the attempts
to capture culture, the firing of the civil service, the
attempts to destroy an independent civil service, you know, all
those things packaged together. And this is for me, where
I've written about these kinds of situations before, this is
this looks to me like an assault on a democratic

(57:48):
political system. And it also looks to me like it
could be their way of preparing for at least to
try to shape the midterms and in ways we haven't
seen before.

Speaker 1 (57:59):
And I it's Hungary the closest sort of corollary here,
like what happened in Hungary.

Speaker 2 (58:04):
I mean, actually in Hungary, the Hungry you know, the
primetership of Hungary didn't move this fast, and he didn't
assault institutions so quickly, and he didn't you know, the
speed of change that we've seen here. I think it's
pretty unprecedented. And there's some aspects of it that are unprecedented,
like for example, the attack on science, on the scientific

(58:25):
research system and on the vaccine research. I mean, there's
there's no other The Chinese don't attack their own research institutions,
you know, they value them. Neither do the Russians. I
mean maybe they politicize them in some ways. It's a
different subject. But there's some pieces of it that seem
pretty radical to me and don't even have an echo

(58:46):
in recent in our world history.

Speaker 1 (58:49):
Well, on that note, with Thanksgiving a week away, there's
there's something to give thanks.

Speaker 2 (58:53):
For well, and you can discuss it with your with
your relatives and cheer up the conversation. But let me
let me end on that note. Actually, because again the
reason I talk about this stuff and I'm sure this
is true of you as well, because I want people
to be aware of it and understand where it could go.
That doesn't mean it has to go that way, but
the more people are aware, the more prepared they are

(59:16):
to do something about.

Speaker 1 (59:18):
And the more people that are aware, I mean, that's
when I have faith in our in the democracy. Eventually,
you know, I'm like Churchill, right, We're going to exhaust
all these other and let's just hope the system is
still there for us to express our concern when the
time I think of all it comes. That's where I
where I get my optimism too. And apple bomb this

(59:41):
appreciate the time.

Speaker 2 (59:43):
Thank you,

All Episodes

Interview Only w/ Anne Applebaum - Why Putin Won’t Stop, And Why Ukraine Won’t Settle

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Interview Only w/ Anne Applebaum - Why Putin Won’t Stop, And Why Ukraine Won’t Settle