October 23, 2025 • 13 mins
In this episode, we unpack the dramatic shift in U.S.–Russia relations as President Donald Trump abandons his diplomatic “carrot” strategy in favor of sanctions and pressure.
Just days after announcing a potential summit with Vladimir Putin in Budapest, the Trump administration abruptly canceled the talks. Instead, Trump has imposed sanctions on two of Russia’s biggest oil companies — Rosneft and Lukoil — signaling frustration with Moscow’s refusal to compromise on Ukraine.
We explore what led to this escalation, the growing tension between Washington and Moscow, and why this move represents a defining moment in Trump’s foreign policy. Has the U.S. truly moved past the “Groundhog Day” cycle of unproductive diplomacy with Russia? Or is this just another chapter in a high-stakes geopolitical tug-of-war?
Listen till the end for expert insights on how Trump’s new approach could reshape U.S. relations with Russia — and whether this harder stance will bring peace closer or push it further away.
Follow for weekly political analysis and deep-dive discussions on U.S. foreign policy and global affairs.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the debate we're diving into, well, a really
striking moment of tension and frankly strategic ambiguity in US
Russia relations. Not long ago, the stage seems set for
high level diplomacy. A US Russia summit was announced for
Budapest following a call between President Trump and President Putin.
(00:20):
And this was happening even as the US was making
noise about supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles, a pretty significant
potential escalation. And yet almost immediately the high profile meeting
canceled and instead bang significant sanctions slapped onto major Russian
state oil companies Rosneft and Luke Coyle. It's a pivot
from let's call them carrots to sticks, and it's pretty staggering.
(00:44):
So the central question really emerging from the material we're
looking at as this, does this sudden pressure, economic and
diplomatic signify a real fundamental, lasting shift in US strategy
towards you know, sustained cost imposition or is Moscow right?
And seeing it is just a temporary, maybe even predictable
flash of frustration, a phase in a cycle they think
(01:05):
they can just weather, leading us back to that pattern
sometimes called well Groundhog Day. I'll be arguing that this
pivot marks a necessary, substantive, and potentially lasting policy correction.
It seems driven by the hard reality of Moscow's frankly
maximalist demands.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
And I'm approaching this with let's say, significant skepticism about
the longevity of this pressure. While the shift looks dramatic, sure,
I'm just not convinced. I believe Moscow perceives and probably
has good reason to think that this is at its
core a temporary tactical move. It maybe lacks the kind
(01:42):
of coherence and sustained political will needed to actually force
a real policy u turn from President Putin. Russia's reaction
right out of the gate seems calibrated for endurance, working
on the assumption that this stick phase will be pretty
short lived.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Hmmm. I understand why you'd focus on Moscow's narrative of resilience,
but let's look a bit closer at the actual sequence
of events that led to this cancelation. This time, the
failure wasn't just about you know, optics or bad planning.
We have pretty clear evidence, I think of the futility
of the earlier approach. Think back to that Alaska meeting right,
minimal prep, little result. The key difference this time leading
(02:21):
up to the cancelation seems to be the rigorous preliminary work,
the groundwork laid by Secretary of State Arco Rubio with
Foreign Minister Lavrov, and that preparatory diplomatic track. It confirmed
two things quite clearly. First, Russia was just unwilling to
make any meaningful compromise or concessions to end the fighting.
And second, because of that, continuing to plan for Budapest
(02:42):
was simply well pointless. President Trump's statement when canceling, saying
it didn't feel like we were going to get to
the place we have to get that signifies a strategic refusal.
I think he's refusing to hand Moscow another easy diplomatic
and political coup, which, let's face it, the previous it
kind of was signaling Russia's return to the international stage
(03:03):
without really paying a price. This shift acknowledges that Russia's
terms for peace are complete non starters for Kiev in Washington.
They involved demands way beyond territory, insisting on addressing these
so called root causes of the war, which really just
translates to halting NATO enlargement. And forcing Ukraine permanently back
into Russia's sphere. So refusing to meet under those conditions
(03:25):
that feels like a serious policy correction to me.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
That's certainly a compelling read of the diplomatic mechanics. Yes,
but we absolutely have to consider how Moscow immediately interprets
this pressure, how they folded into their own strategic thinking
and the immediate Russian response. It suggests a clear and
frankly expected trajectory in their minds. This stick is just
(03:48):
seen as a temporary burst of anger. President Putin himself,
what did he say? He dismissed the cancelation and sanctions
as an unfriendly act, which is, you know, standard diplomatic talk.
But crucially, he immediately hammered home his core message both
domestically and internationally. No self respecting country and no self
(04:09):
respecting people ever decide anything under pressure. So if the
whole point of the sticks is to compel compromise, this
public defiance seems to achieve the exact opposite, doesn't it.
And then you look at the more extreme rhetoric coming
from figures like former President Medvedev calling these decisions an
act of war against Russia, declaring the USA the enemy.
(04:31):
It suggests the pressure just hardens Moscow's domestic position. It
gives the Kremlin the friction it needs to unify public
opinion and push for those maximalist names, and the Moscow media, specifically,
Moskowsky consummilts they frame the cancelation as simply the capriciousness
and fickleness of Russia's main negotiating partner. So they're not
(04:52):
seeing a serious long term strategic shift. They see it
as erratic behavior, something they can manage an outlast.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Okay, let's dig into that. Then, the core debate around
the efficacy and the Russian perception of this stick. You
rightly point out the material notes that the sanctions on
Rosneft and Luke Oil are unlikely to force a U
turn on the war immediately, and that's probably true given
the structure of these sanctions. They often target longer term investment,
(05:20):
not necessarily immediate oil output. But where I fundamentally disagree
is the implication that because the immediate impact is limited,
the strategic signal has failed. Imposing sanctions on state owned
oil giants. The very lifeblood of the Russian budget isn't
just about signaling frustration. It's establishing a clear link between
(05:41):
Moscow's refusal to budge and a sustained increase in long
term economic pain. This frustration, this pressure. It's necessitated precisely
because Moscow insists on terms that are completely unacceptable, demanding
the entire don boss, forcing Kiev back into a subservient role.
When the diplomatic channel is showed own to be essentially
(06:01):
just theater for moscow symbolic gains, then sustained targeted economic
pressure becomes arguably the only credible response left.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
I'm sorry, I just don't quite buy that the signaling
is truly effective when the domestic reaction in Russia is
so easily spun to validate calls for more fighting, more
unity against the West. When you impose sanctions and the
message received internally isn't we need a change course, but
rather Washington is fickle and unreliable, it only strengthens the
hand of the hard liners in Moscow pushing for military victory.
(06:34):
The sanctions seem to increase Russian resolve because the Kremlin
can immediately turn around and tell its public, see the
West proferns where it wore compromise now would be weakness.
Moskowski coomasomolids basically made that exact argument, declaring there isn't
a single reason Moscow should agree to a ceasefire. You
can't signal serious commitment effectively if your counterpart is already
writing off your actions as temporary volatility. The pressure would
(06:56):
need to be well existential to really force it. You
turn more like an inconvenient that actually justifies greater resolve
on their part.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Okay, if you argue the sanctions are primarily symbolic in
their immediate effect, what about the symbolic act of denying
Moscow the prestige of the summit itself. Does that also
lack strategic weight in your view? Let's focus on the
meaning of canceling the Budapest's summit. I'd argue this cancelation
proves an increased cautiousness, perhaps even a strategic maturity in Washington.
(07:28):
It denied Moscow a diplomatic symbolic victory that it clearly craved,
and denying that summit it carries geopolitical weight beyond just
the US Russia dynamic. Remember, Russian commentators were framing a
potential summit in Europe without the EU present as a
significant slap in the face for Brussels. By pulling the plug,
Washington demonstrated, I think, a necessary linkage between high level
(07:51):
talks and actual concrete preconditions, preconditions which the Rubiolavrev discussions
confirmed were completely absent. Denying that symbolic plag undercuts Moscow's
narrative of being an equal player on the international stage,
at least on their current terms.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Hmm. I see it rather differently regarding that diplomatic denial.
I think the cancelation was in fact largely anticipated in Moscow,
and from their perspective, it just confirms their existing analysis
of shall we say, us inconsistency. We have to remember
that observation in the material suggesting that few here in
(08:28):
Moscow seem to believe that even if it went ahead,
the Buddapest Summit would produce the kind of result Moscow wanted.
The cancelation simply validates their prior analysis that President Trump
is easily swayed by competing pressures, both internal and external.
They don't read this as strategic strength. They see it
as weakness, as internal vacillation. It demonstrates to them that
(08:52):
Washington isn't capable of a sustained coherent policy. This reinforces
the belief we saw echoed in their media that in
the game of Trump tug of war, Russia is leading
again and that Putin can simply pull him back to
our side again after a brief intervention by European allies.
(09:14):
So the cancelation actually proves the predictability of the US response,
which paradoxically works in Moscow's long term favor.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
That analysis of Russia's internal expectations, this tug of war idea,
it really brings us to the core issue of the
groundhog day cycle you mentioned. You're suggesting this reversion is
inevitable because Russian strategists predict this kind of oscillation. Trump
gets pulled one way by Europe, then Putin pulls him
back again. But we need to be clear about the
(09:46):
mechanism here. Is this cycle driven purely by perceived instability
in Washington or is it fundamentally enabled by Russia's unchanging
maximalist demands. If Russia genuinely views this current pressure as
just a phase, a tactical blip, it means they're completely
entrenched in the belief that the political desire for high
level talks in Washington will eventually bubble up again. They
(10:08):
expect to return to the status quo, where perhaps optics
are prioritized over substantive concessions from their side. The cycle
continues simply because Moscow waits it.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Out, and that waiting game seems to be the default
setting exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
But I would challenge the inevitability of that cycle, precisely
because it seems the US political apparatus might have finally
absorbed the lesson from Alaska. Dialogue just for dialogue's sake
is effectively a concession to Moscow. Under these circumstances, the
refusal to meet when preconditions are clearly unmet, coupled with
the targeting of their major oil companies, that represents potentially
(10:42):
a genuine breakpoint. It stems from a clearer assessment of
the futility of the previous approach. If the ingrained pattern
the essence of groundhog Day, was just to let the
summit happen with minimal prep and zero real results, then
this deliberate break from that pattern suggests a painful but
maybe essential strategic lesson has actually been learned. Now. The
(11:02):
risk of slipping back into the cycle is obviously real,
but the present evidence points towards a necessary strategic disruption
one aims squarely at raising the cost of Moscow's unwavering
in transigence.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
The strategic weight of that disruption, though, hinges entirely on
Washington's willingness to actually endure the resulting diplomatic silence the
potential lack of engagement.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
So, to summarize my position, the current pressure strategy looks
like a substantive and frankly necessary evolution. It reflects the
grim reality of Moscow's entrenched position their terms. Demanding full
control of Don Boss and addressing these vague root causes
that undermine Ukraine's sovereignty are simply non starters for Kiev.
(11:47):
In Washington, this shift, moving from prioritizing engagement above all
else to prioritizing coercion, even if it's politically costly, it
demonstrates perhaps a newfound consistency in handling this conft.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
And I would conclude that while the action certainly looks dramatic,
the sanctions themselves feel largely symbolic in their immediate bite.
They aren't expected by Moscow to actually compel a policy change.
President Putin's immediate dismissive defiance tells us that much Moscow's
entrenched belief in its ability to just outweight This perceived
(12:22):
fickleness seems justified, especially when you consider their internal commentary.
Seeing President Trump as highly susceptible to these competing external pressures,
the cycle seems poised to continue.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
The material we've examined definitely highlights the fundamental difficulty, doesn't
it Negotiating with Moscow when it's desired. Outcomes total military
control in the region and fundamentally reducing Ukraine's sovereignty are
just unacceptable to its counterparts. The diplomatic impact seems baked
in because the demands are mutually exclusive, right.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And the ultimate outcome where this goes next it hinges
entirely on the follow throw. Is President Trump really prepared
to increase the pressure even more over time, or will
the political cost of wielding this stick consistently prove too high,
causing Washington to eventually fall back into that familiar, predictable cycle.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Indeed, it forces us to keep analyzing the material, considering
both the immediate strategic moves and just as importantly, the
long term, deeply entrenched and cycle aware expectations of the
key players involved.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Here, an ongoing analysis that certainly benefits from considering these
multiple perspectives
Welcome to the debate we're diving into, well, a really
striking moment of tension and frankly strategic ambiguity in US
Russia relations. Not long ago, the stage seems set for
high level diplomacy. A US Russia summit was announced for
Budapest following a call between President Trump and President Putin.
(00:20):
And this was happening even as the US was making
noise about supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles, a pretty significant
potential escalation. And yet almost immediately the high profile meeting
canceled and instead bang significant sanctions slapped onto major Russian
state oil companies Rosneft and Luke Coyle. It's a pivot
from let's call them carrots to sticks, and it's pretty staggering.
(00:44):
So the central question really emerging from the material we're
looking at as this, does this sudden pressure, economic and
diplomatic signify a real fundamental, lasting shift in US strategy
towards you know, sustained cost imposition or is Moscow right?
And seeing it is just a temporary, maybe even predictable
flash of frustration, a phase in a cycle they think
(01:05):
they can just weather, leading us back to that pattern
sometimes called well Groundhog Day. I'll be arguing that this
pivot marks a necessary, substantive, and potentially lasting policy correction.
It seems driven by the hard reality of Moscow's frankly
maximalist demands.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
And I'm approaching this with let's say, significant skepticism about
the longevity of this pressure. While the shift looks dramatic, sure,
I'm just not convinced. I believe Moscow perceives and probably
has good reason to think that this is at its
core a temporary tactical move. It maybe lacks the kind
(01:42):
of coherence and sustained political will needed to actually force
a real policy u turn from President Putin. Russia's reaction
right out of the gate seems calibrated for endurance, working
on the assumption that this stick phase will be pretty
short lived.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Hmmm. I understand why you'd focus on Moscow's narrative of resilience,
but let's look a bit closer at the actual sequence
of events that led to this cancelation. This time, the
failure wasn't just about you know, optics or bad planning.
We have pretty clear evidence, I think of the futility
of the earlier approach. Think back to that Alaska meeting right,
minimal prep, little result. The key difference this time leading
(02:21):
up to the cancelation seems to be the rigorous preliminary work,
the groundwork laid by Secretary of State Arco Rubio with
Foreign Minister Lavrov, and that preparatory diplomatic track. It confirmed
two things quite clearly. First, Russia was just unwilling to
make any meaningful compromise or concessions to end the fighting.
And second, because of that, continuing to plan for Budapest
(02:42):
was simply well pointless. President Trump's statement when canceling, saying
it didn't feel like we were going to get to
the place we have to get that signifies a strategic refusal.
I think he's refusing to hand Moscow another easy diplomatic
and political coup, which, let's face it, the previous it
kind of was signaling Russia's return to the international stage
(03:03):
without really paying a price. This shift acknowledges that Russia's
terms for peace are complete non starters for Kiev in Washington.
They involved demands way beyond territory, insisting on addressing these
so called root causes of the war, which really just
translates to halting NATO enlargement. And forcing Ukraine permanently back
into Russia's sphere. So refusing to meet under those conditions
(03:25):
that feels like a serious policy correction to me.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
That's certainly a compelling read of the diplomatic mechanics. Yes,
but we absolutely have to consider how Moscow immediately interprets
this pressure, how they folded into their own strategic thinking
and the immediate Russian response. It suggests a clear and
frankly expected trajectory in their minds. This stick is just
(03:48):
seen as a temporary burst of anger. President Putin himself,
what did he say? He dismissed the cancelation and sanctions
as an unfriendly act, which is, you know, standard diplomatic talk.
But crucially, he immediately hammered home his core message both
domestically and internationally. No self respecting country and no self
(04:09):
respecting people ever decide anything under pressure. So if the
whole point of the sticks is to compel compromise, this
public defiance seems to achieve the exact opposite, doesn't it.
And then you look at the more extreme rhetoric coming
from figures like former President Medvedev calling these decisions an
act of war against Russia, declaring the USA the enemy.
(04:31):
It suggests the pressure just hardens Moscow's domestic position. It
gives the Kremlin the friction it needs to unify public
opinion and push for those maximalist names, and the Moscow media, specifically,
Moskowsky consummilts they frame the cancelation as simply the capriciousness
and fickleness of Russia's main negotiating partner. So they're not
(04:52):
seeing a serious long term strategic shift. They see it
as erratic behavior, something they can manage an outlast.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Okay, let's dig into that. Then, the core debate around
the efficacy and the Russian perception of this stick. You
rightly point out the material notes that the sanctions on
Rosneft and Luke Oil are unlikely to force a U
turn on the war immediately, and that's probably true given
the structure of these sanctions. They often target longer term investment,
(05:20):
not necessarily immediate oil output. But where I fundamentally disagree
is the implication that because the immediate impact is limited,
the strategic signal has failed. Imposing sanctions on state owned
oil giants. The very lifeblood of the Russian budget isn't
just about signaling frustration. It's establishing a clear link between
(05:41):
Moscow's refusal to budge and a sustained increase in long
term economic pain. This frustration, this pressure. It's necessitated precisely
because Moscow insists on terms that are completely unacceptable, demanding
the entire don boss, forcing Kiev back into a subservient role.
When the diplomatic channel is showed own to be essentially
(06:01):
just theater for moscow symbolic gains, then sustained targeted economic
pressure becomes arguably the only credible response left.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
I'm sorry, I just don't quite buy that the signaling
is truly effective when the domestic reaction in Russia is
so easily spun to validate calls for more fighting, more
unity against the West. When you impose sanctions and the
message received internally isn't we need a change course, but
rather Washington is fickle and unreliable, it only strengthens the
hand of the hard liners in Moscow pushing for military victory.
(06:34):
The sanctions seem to increase Russian resolve because the Kremlin
can immediately turn around and tell its public, see the
West proferns where it wore compromise now would be weakness.
Moskowski coomasomolids basically made that exact argument, declaring there isn't
a single reason Moscow should agree to a ceasefire. You
can't signal serious commitment effectively if your counterpart is already
writing off your actions as temporary volatility. The pressure would
(06:56):
need to be well existential to really force it. You
turn more like an inconvenient that actually justifies greater resolve
on their part.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Okay, if you argue the sanctions are primarily symbolic in
their immediate effect, what about the symbolic act of denying
Moscow the prestige of the summit itself. Does that also
lack strategic weight in your view? Let's focus on the
meaning of canceling the Budapest's summit. I'd argue this cancelation
proves an increased cautiousness, perhaps even a strategic maturity in Washington.
(07:28):
It denied Moscow a diplomatic symbolic victory that it clearly craved,
and denying that summit it carries geopolitical weight beyond just
the US Russia dynamic. Remember, Russian commentators were framing a
potential summit in Europe without the EU present as a
significant slap in the face for Brussels. By pulling the plug,
Washington demonstrated, I think, a necessary linkage between high level
(07:51):
talks and actual concrete preconditions, preconditions which the Rubiolavrev discussions
confirmed were completely absent. Denying that symbolic plag undercuts Moscow's
narrative of being an equal player on the international stage,
at least on their current terms.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Hmm. I see it rather differently regarding that diplomatic denial.
I think the cancelation was in fact largely anticipated in Moscow,
and from their perspective, it just confirms their existing analysis
of shall we say, us inconsistency. We have to remember
that observation in the material suggesting that few here in
(08:28):
Moscow seem to believe that even if it went ahead,
the Buddapest Summit would produce the kind of result Moscow wanted.
The cancelation simply validates their prior analysis that President Trump
is easily swayed by competing pressures, both internal and external.
They don't read this as strategic strength. They see it
as weakness, as internal vacillation. It demonstrates to them that
(08:52):
Washington isn't capable of a sustained coherent policy. This reinforces
the belief we saw echoed in their media that in
the game of Trump tug of war, Russia is leading
again and that Putin can simply pull him back to
our side again after a brief intervention by European allies.
(09:14):
So the cancelation actually proves the predictability of the US response,
which paradoxically works in Moscow's long term favor.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
That analysis of Russia's internal expectations, this tug of war idea,
it really brings us to the core issue of the
groundhog day cycle you mentioned. You're suggesting this reversion is
inevitable because Russian strategists predict this kind of oscillation. Trump
gets pulled one way by Europe, then Putin pulls him
back again. But we need to be clear about the
(09:46):
mechanism here. Is this cycle driven purely by perceived instability
in Washington or is it fundamentally enabled by Russia's unchanging
maximalist demands. If Russia genuinely views this current pressure as
just a phase, a tactical blip, it means they're completely
entrenched in the belief that the political desire for high
level talks in Washington will eventually bubble up again. They
(10:08):
expect to return to the status quo, where perhaps optics
are prioritized over substantive concessions from their side. The cycle
continues simply because Moscow waits it.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Out, and that waiting game seems to be the default
setting exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
But I would challenge the inevitability of that cycle, precisely
because it seems the US political apparatus might have finally
absorbed the lesson from Alaska. Dialogue just for dialogue's sake
is effectively a concession to Moscow. Under these circumstances, the
refusal to meet when preconditions are clearly unmet, coupled with
the targeting of their major oil companies, that represents potentially
(10:42):
a genuine breakpoint. It stems from a clearer assessment of
the futility of the previous approach. If the ingrained pattern
the essence of groundhog Day, was just to let the
summit happen with minimal prep and zero real results, then
this deliberate break from that pattern suggests a painful but
maybe essential strategic lesson has actually been learned. Now. The
(11:02):
risk of slipping back into the cycle is obviously real,
but the present evidence points towards a necessary strategic disruption
one aims squarely at raising the cost of Moscow's unwavering
in transigence.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
The strategic weight of that disruption, though, hinges entirely on
Washington's willingness to actually endure the resulting diplomatic silence the
potential lack of engagement.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
So, to summarize my position, the current pressure strategy looks
like a substantive and frankly necessary evolution. It reflects the
grim reality of Moscow's entrenched position their terms. Demanding full
control of Don Boss and addressing these vague root causes
that undermine Ukraine's sovereignty are simply non starters for Kiev.
(11:47):
In Washington, this shift, moving from prioritizing engagement above all
else to prioritizing coercion, even if it's politically costly, it
demonstrates perhaps a newfound consistency in handling this conft.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
And I would conclude that while the action certainly looks dramatic,
the sanctions themselves feel largely symbolic in their immediate bite.
They aren't expected by Moscow to actually compel a policy change.
President Putin's immediate dismissive defiance tells us that much Moscow's
entrenched belief in its ability to just outweight This perceived
(12:22):
fickleness seems justified, especially when you consider their internal commentary.
Seeing President Trump as highly susceptible to these competing external pressures,
the cycle seems poised to continue.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
The material we've examined definitely highlights the fundamental difficulty, doesn't
it Negotiating with Moscow when it's desired. Outcomes total military
control in the region and fundamentally reducing Ukraine's sovereignty are
just unacceptable to its counterparts. The diplomatic impact seems baked
in because the demands are mutually exclusive, right.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And the ultimate outcome where this goes next it hinges
entirely on the follow throw. Is President Trump really prepared
to increase the pressure even more over time, or will
the political cost of wielding this stick consistently prove too high,
causing Washington to eventually fall back into that familiar, predictable cycle.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Indeed, it forces us to keep analyzing the material, considering
both the immediate strategic moves and just as importantly, the
long term, deeply entrenched and cycle aware expectations of the
key players involved.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Here, an ongoing analysis that certainly benefits from considering these
multiple perspectives
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.