#357 — America & World Order
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
149.93184
Summary
Brett Stevens is an opinion columnist for The New York Times. He previously served as editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post and as foreign affairs columnist for the Wall Street Journal. Among his other distinctions, Brett won a 2013 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He was banned for life by the government of Russia in 2022, and can't visit that country ever again. And we talk about Russia, among other things, the waning Pax Americana, American isolationism, Republican fondness for Vladimir Putin, Tucker Carlson, why America should support Ukraine, the significance of Alexei Navalny, what it would mean to properly hold Putin responsible for his death, nuclear blackmail, valid criticisms of Israel, the war in Gaza, the need for total military defeat of Hamas, the prospects of a two-state solution, the prospect of a Trump victory, the crisis at the southern border, immigration policy, and other topics we cover a lot of ground here. And now I bring you Brett's thoughts on the weather in New York, and why this year promises to be unfortunately not at all boring. a year in which everything seems to be accelerating, and this year, in general, is going to be a little better than last year. Thanks to our sponsor, Sam Harris, for sponsoring the podcast. The Making Sense Podcast. We don t run ads on the podcast, and therefore it s made possible entirely through the support of our listeners, so if you enjoy what we re doing here, please consider becoming a supporter of the podcast by becoming a subscriber. You re gonna get a lot more than you d have to pay the price of membership in the Making Sense. Sam Harris Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Podcoin, Stitcher, and much more! to get exclusive ad-free episodes and access to all the best shows on the internet, including the latest and the best ones on the best podcasts on the world including The Huffington Post, NPR, Slate, and NPR. and the New Republic. to watch the newest podcast on your favorite podcast and more. Subscribe and subscribe on Audible to learn more about what s going on in the making sense podcast? in the coming weeks, coming soon, coming up, coming to you soon! to the Making sense podcast! Thanks for listening to The Making sense Podcast! - Sam Harris and his co-hosts: - Evan R. Smith and Sarah Downey
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast. This is Sam Harris. Just a note to say that if
00:00:11.640
you're hearing this, you're not currently on our subscriber feed, and we'll only be
00:00:15.580
hearing the first part of this conversation. In order to access full episodes of the Making
00:00:19.840
Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at samharris.org. There you'll also find our
00:00:24.960
scholarship program, where we offer free accounts to anyone who can't afford one.
00:00:28.340
We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support
00:00:32.860
of our subscribers. So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one.
00:00:44.980
Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast. This is Sam Harris. I released my second conversation
00:00:51.580
with Rory Stewart last week. Many of you found that frustrating. I understand, especially
00:01:01.440
if you are listening to it after more recent events in the UK have unfolded, where even
00:01:09.040
the Prime Minister had to give a speech about the pervasive problem of Islamism and jihadism
00:01:15.280
in the UK, and how they could no longer tolerate it. Anyway, make of that conversation what you
00:01:21.340
will. I won't further comment on it here, but I am confident that the topic will come
00:01:32.860
Today I'm speaking with Brett Stevens. Brett is an opinion columnist for the New York Times.
00:01:38.360
He previously served as editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, and as foreign affairs columnist
00:01:44.540
for the Wall Street Journal, for which he won a 2013 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. Among
00:01:51.920
his other distinctions, in 2022, he was banned for life by the government of Russia and can't
00:01:58.860
visit that country ever again. And we talk about Russia, among other things. We discuss America's
00:02:05.940
place in the world, the waning Pax Americana, American isolationism, Republican fondness for Putin,
00:02:13.180
Tucker Carlson, why America should support Ukraine, the significance of Alexei Navalny,
00:02:19.760
what it would mean to properly hold Putin responsible for his death, nuclear blackmail,
00:02:25.560
valid criticisms of Israel, the war in Gaza, Palestinian public opinion, the need for total
00:02:32.360
military defeat of Hamas, the prospects of a two-state solution, the isolation of Israel at the UN
00:02:39.600
and the International Criminal Court of Justice, waning support for the war in the Biden administration,
00:02:46.180
Hezbollah and war with Iran, Israeli politics and the settlements in the West Bank,
00:02:53.700
charges of settler colonialism, anti-Semitism as a series of double standards, the prospect of a Trump
00:03:01.280
victory, Biden's age problem, the crisis at the southern border, U.S. immigration policy,
00:03:08.860
and other topics. We cover a lot of ground here. And now I bring you Brett Stevens.
00:03:21.360
I am back with Brett Stevens. Brett, thanks for joining me.
00:03:25.880
So there's not much going on in the world. It's too bad we don't have anything to talk about. How's
00:03:33.020
Yeah, it's a quiet time of peace on Earth. So the weather is just fine. It's warming up.
00:03:41.220
It really is. I don't know if this is an illusion, but it seems like history is being made at an
00:03:50.100
increasing pace here. Everything seems to be accelerating, and this year promises to be
00:03:55.620
unfortunately not at all boring. I've been gathering topics to talk to you about when we
00:04:01.080
originally scheduled this a couple of weeks ago. I've been just watching the news and writing down
00:04:05.900
topics, and they sort of fall into five buckets, and we'll see if we get through each of them. But
00:04:10.900
I'll just preview them for you, and then I'll lead you into the first. The first is the waning
00:04:17.120
Pax Americana, American isolationism, and the inclination among Republicans to abdicate
00:04:22.940
U.S. leadership in the world. Tucker Carlson is a font of wisdom, etc. The second, which is kind
00:04:29.880
of contiguous with that, is Russia and the war in Ukraine. The third is the Middle East, the war in
00:04:36.160
Gaza and Iran and related matters. The fourth is the presidential election, the trouble with Joe Biden.
00:04:44.120
At one point, you made a charitable case for Trump in your column for the New York Times.
00:04:49.940
Well, that was a thought experiment, just for the record.
00:04:53.360
Yeah, we'll be clear about that, yes. This was a bending over backwards to take those who are still
00:04:58.820
inclined to vote for Trump seriously, insofar as that's possible. And then finally, I thought we
00:05:04.300
could touch on the crisis at the southern border and our immigration policy, if you have anything to
00:05:09.840
say on that topic. Yeah. Topics I write about a lot. Great. So, number one, so this new feeling of
00:05:18.540
American isolationism, I've said previously on the podcast, it would be one thing to argue for
00:05:23.720
a different posture for America with respect to being the world's cop or maintaining the rules-based
00:05:30.660
international order. And I think we can readily argue against that. But the Republicans seem to have
00:05:36.200
gone further and they've actually become fans of autocracy in various forms and certainly fans of
00:05:43.740
Putin. And then you have someone like Tucker Carlson, who many people take seriously as a maverick
00:05:49.740
journalist who's uncovering the real deal over there in Russia. How do you view what's happening here with
00:05:56.180
respect to American leadership? And then we will turn that toward Russia and Ukraine afterwards.
00:06:03.040
You know, someone once said to me that there's a smart version of wrong and a dumb version of
00:06:08.360
wrong. And when it comes to Ukraine, the smart version of wrong is the argument that we can't
00:06:16.320
possibly hope to bring Ukraine into a Western sphere of influence when for the Russians, it's so core to
00:06:25.000
the way they have seen themselves historically that our energies have to be husbanded to deal with our
00:06:33.740
principal threats. And our principal threat is China. And we would be better served pushing Ukraine into
00:06:41.420
some kind of negotiated settlement with Russia so that we can deal more forcefully with the threat that the
00:06:50.040
Chinese pose to our position and our alliances in the Far East. That's the smart version of wrong. It's wrong
00:06:58.540
because I think that if Ukraine is going to fall, then we will have to actually devote more resources to
00:07:05.920
the defense of Europe, not fewer resources. It will be a NATO country that will next be in the crosshairs and we
00:07:13.060
will have treaty obligations. And it's wrong because I think the collapse of Ukraine and or rather the
00:07:19.640
collapse of Western and American will to support Ukraine is just going to serve as an advertisement
00:07:26.000
to Xi Jinping and China to adopt an even more aggressive posture in Taiwan. But at least that position has the
00:07:33.920
merit of an attempt to sort of think strategically about what our options are when we have limited
00:07:42.520
resources. The Republican Party now is in the dumb version of wrong, not even the dumb version of wrong,
00:07:48.760
I would say the evil version of wrong, because what they are doing is abandoning an extraordinarily
00:07:55.280
courageous democratic ally that has done us the service, the great strategic service of destroying about
00:08:02.320
half the Russian military without the loss of a single American or NATO soldier. And against a
00:08:11.560
dictatorship that, as we just saw with the killing, really the murder of Navalny, whether he was
00:08:17.160
murdered in this last instance or so sort of just slowly put to death, embodies the most despicable,
00:08:26.280
malevolent features of Soviet totalitarianism that the Republican Party
00:08:31.180
used to stand against. So it's ignominious what the Republicans are proposing. But it's also
00:08:41.020
ignominious and stupid, because ultimately, an America that abandons its allies, an America that
00:08:48.400
thinks that our oceans are moats, is going to come to the same painful discovery that our great-grandfathers
00:08:55.640
had 80 years ago, more than 80 years ago, when they realized that our oceans are not moats,
00:09:01.900
and that we are vulnerable to attack, and that we will be attacked, because we are ultimately the
00:09:07.380
great democratic power and a source of a target for dictatorships everywhere. So the Republican Party
00:09:15.720
has really descended below just simply bad strategic thinking into something that looks like the head in
00:09:23.680
the sand, know-nothing isolationism that brought us to the brink of disaster back in the late 30s and
00:09:30.020
Well, I know I've asked you some version of this question more or less every time we've spoken,
00:09:36.540
and I imagine there really isn't an answer for it, but I'm going to give it another go, because
00:09:41.240
it is the inscrutable object and moral horror at the center of this thing on the right politically
00:09:49.600
in America now, which is just how did we get here? I mean, you know many of these Republicans.
00:09:54.880
I mean, you speak privately with them, presumably. I don't know if you still do. I mean, many are
00:09:59.380
former colleagues, and many are very serious people, or erstwhile serious people.
00:10:04.800
Yeah. But I mean, there are people who you know who have like real bona fides, as many of them as
00:10:09.740
intellectuals, some are like were or may yet aspire to be serious politicians who are, for whatever
00:10:16.380
reason, enthralled to the cult of Trump, presumably mostly for opportunistic reasons or reasons of
00:10:21.760
political survival. But I mean, how is it that we have so many people acquiescing to what is just a,
00:10:30.880
you know, at best, an amoral embrace of somebody like Putin? Just that the list of indiscretions
00:10:38.560
is so long and so obvious and so indisputable. I mean, he's someone who, you know, the very moment
00:10:44.640
that Tucker Carlson is glad handing him, you know, there's a Wall Street Journal journalist
00:10:51.120
imprisoned over there, right? He's somebody who kills his political opponents, not just in Russia,
00:10:57.800
but he kills his critics in the capitals of Europe, you know, poisoning them with polonium or nerve
00:11:03.580
agents. You know, he imprisons his own billionaires, right? I mean, it's just like, how is it that the
00:11:09.840
Republican Party can, even for a day, tolerate an apparent fondness for this guy, given what it
00:11:17.560
used to stand for? You know, the Republicans used to mock left liberals who would go to the Soviet
00:11:23.520
Union and say, you know, people seem pretty happy there. And yeah, maybe they're a little poorer than
00:11:28.340
we are, but there's more equality. They would mock, you know, the nation likes to do tours of Cuba and
00:11:35.060
talk about the great health service there. And it was a source of conservative derision, correctly so,
00:11:41.580
the kind of naive, starry-eyed Westerner who would go to a despotic regime and take a look at the
00:11:47.380
Potemkin villages that had been erected for them and say, look, you know, I've seen the future and
00:11:52.640
it works, as Lincoln Stevens, a great progressive journalist from 100 years ago, famously said.
00:11:59.200
And now it's the Tucker Carlson's who are doing precisely that. I mean, precisely that, going to a
00:12:05.060
country where the gross domestic product per capita hovers around, I think, $11,000 or $12,000 a year,
00:12:13.400
and seeing a showcase supermarket for the nomenklatura, some of our listeners will understand
00:12:20.460
what that term means, you know, the upper crust, the upper elites of Moscow and saying, look how much
00:12:26.220
better this is than your average stop and shop. By the way, I doubt very much that it is, but that was
00:12:32.720
what Tucker was peddling. And, you know, to answer your question, when Trump was first elected, Sam,
00:12:39.300
I took some books off my shelf, which I had read in college. I got to college in 1991, which was the
00:12:47.320
same year that the Soviet Union collapsed. And for some reason, I developed this kind of fascination
00:12:52.740
with the anti-communist intelligentsia of the Cold War, really, not just anti-communist,
00:13:01.180
anti-totalitarian. So from Orwell and through, you know, Milos, the great Polish intellectual,
00:13:08.560
Václav Havel, dissidents like Sakharov, all these people sort of thought deeply about the nature of
00:13:14.700
totalitarian society. And what's fascinating about some of the best work there is it's not
00:13:21.200
really a political analysis, it's a psychological analysis of what makes people succumb to ideologies
00:13:30.920
that at some level they know are false and evil. And the really interesting insight, you find this
00:13:40.320
in Milos, for example, is that it's not really fear that is the motivating force. It's a kind of
00:13:48.740
rationalization of the position that they're in. So it's a kind of view that, well, it's all bullshit,
00:13:58.320
so why don't you just go along with the bullshit that happens to be in power? Or, yes, the system is
00:14:04.840
evil, but this is the direction in which history is inexorably going, and so you want to be on the right
00:14:09.500
side of history. Or they're even sort of darker psychological tropes. Jean-Francois Revelle
00:14:17.720
once said that, you know, it's easy to understand why people want to tyrannize other people, but the
00:14:24.040
really interesting mystery is why some people want to be tyrannized. I mean, this captures sides of the
00:14:32.740
human psyche that those of us living in free societies are loathe to acknowledge or see, even if we see it
00:14:41.700
in some cultures and subcultures, but it's there. And that's how people succumbed to the lure of despots,
00:14:51.340
cults of personality, preposterous ideologies, ideas that collapse in the face of a moment's thought.
00:15:00.940
And yet that's what you have now in the Republican Party. And I think it's a mixture of a few things.
00:15:08.160
I was in a debate recently with someone on some foreign policy questions, and the guy's argument
00:15:14.980
basically came down to, well, the American people don't see it that way. And, you know, to which you
00:15:21.520
want to say, well, they're mistaken, and in a free society, we should raise our voices and argue with
00:15:26.720
the American people and win them over, right? That's the task of democratic persuasion. So
00:15:32.360
that's sort of the argument like, well, history is not on your side, and I want to be on the side of
00:15:36.000
history. Or essentially, like, you know, why should we have a moral component to our foreign policy? It's
00:15:43.400
a dog-eat-dog, Habizian world. Let's just accept that that's the way it is. Well, you know, most of us
00:15:49.440
actually understand that it's a better world and a smarter world when leadership contains a moral
00:15:54.680
element which makes other people want to follow you and not oppose you. So that, I think, I think
00:16:02.060
you really understand something of Trumpian ideology. I'm not talking about sort of the ordinary Trump
00:16:09.040
voter, but the Trump ideologues in reading these books that came out 60 or 70 years ago about why
00:16:17.400
despotism seemed to be so effective for decades on end.
00:16:24.780
Well, what to think about the war in Ukraine at this moment? I mean, we're now speaking just a
00:16:32.620
handful of days after there was a recent setback there. To say that we have been dilatory in providing
00:16:41.640
aid to Ukraine at this point is a bit of an understatement. There's a lot of controversy as to
00:16:46.720
whether we should be aiding Ukraine as you move, certainly as you move right of center. And there's
00:16:51.960
also, as you said, the recent death of Navalny, which really kind of sharpens up the moral difference
00:16:59.080
between the two sides. You wrote an article recently about what it would mean to properly hold Putin
00:17:05.380
responsible for Navalny's death. That might be an interesting way into this question. But tell me how
00:17:11.500
you're viewing the war in Ukraine, our wavering support for it, and what you think we should do
00:17:18.340
in light of who Putin is and what his intentions are and what it means to defend a struggling democracy.
00:17:26.740
Well, we should help Ukraine as much as we can, not only because of the morality of supporting an
00:17:34.700
embattled democratic ally against a foe like Putin, but much more importantly, the self-interest.
00:17:40.760
The self-interest, you know, the kind of argument that I hear on some quarters, many quarters of the
00:17:47.760
right, sometimes on the left too, is, you know, morality is too expensive for foreign policy. Foreign
00:17:55.360
policy is about our interests. But there is no question that the United States has an interest
00:18:02.280
in seeing it's one of its two most aggressive and arguably its most dangerous geopolitical rival,
00:18:10.540
humbled, humiliated, and defeated on the battlefield, not by us, but by our proxy.
00:18:16.700
And when it comes to the question of expense, you know, someone says, well, $60 billion is a lot of
00:18:22.440
money. It reminds me of a scene in one of those Austin Powers movies, you know, where the evil guy says
00:18:31.880
that his ransom is a million dollars, he's like, come back to life from the 50s or 60s, and everyone's
00:18:38.580
like, a million dollars? Like, that's nothing. So $60 billion, as large a sum as that sounds,
00:18:45.740
is 1% of the federal budget. Okay? We have a $6 trillion budget. Ask yourself, is it worth spending
00:18:55.980
one out of every $100 that we spend on so many other things, right, on defeating one of our two
00:19:03.300
principal strategic rivals through the sacrifice and courage of our friends and partners in Ukraine?
00:19:11.200
I would argue that's an incredibly great investment for the United States.
00:19:16.800
We even have a few American citizens who could single-handedly foot the bill and still have $60
00:19:21.720
billion left over after they picked up the tab. I can think of one or two of them off the top of
00:19:29.120
my head. They would be fine for the rest of their lives. But I think this is a task really for the
00:19:35.140
American government and even the American taxpayer. We are more secure when Putin can no longer think
00:19:42.240
that he can threaten his neighbors and ultimately our treaty allies with impunity. Now, the other
00:19:51.680
aspect comes to life with novality. You know, when I was coming of age, I think maybe you're a few years
00:19:58.080
older than I am, Sam. Basically, we're the same generation. So we remember that names like Solzhenitsyn,
00:20:04.840
Sakharov, Sharansky, Havel, Lech Walesa, the Solidarity Movement in Poland. These were household names in the West.
00:20:15.200
And Navalny should be a household name not only because of the extraordinary example of moral and
00:20:22.880
political courage, but actually also the power of his thinking and his prose. It is a shame he was not
00:20:31.720
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize before he was murdered. But Navalny matters because he symbolizes
00:20:39.140
what all free societies should stand for, which is the belief in the singular importance of individual
00:20:47.300
conscience in the face of the overwhelming power of the state. That we as members of democratic societies
00:20:56.020
should always look at those exemplars of individual conscience and dissent as models for what we in our
00:21:07.120
societies try to protect. And I fear even now that within a week, the conversation about Navalny is
00:21:15.800
going to be, you know, a part of the remote past. And I think that's not only a failure on our part,
00:21:21.820
and it says something, I think, about the degraded state of democratic discourse. But it's also a
00:21:26.840
foreign policy failure. Because in standing up for people like Navalny, in punishing the regime for
00:21:33.360
what it did to him, we're actually helping to embolden some unseen number of future Navalny's who could,
00:21:43.240
at some point, profoundly threaten the state. It's not for nothing that Putin took a singular
00:21:48.100
interest in Navalny and was so threatened by him because he understood that the power of Navalny's
00:21:53.420
example, his courage and his conscience were a threat to his regime. The best thing we could do,
00:21:58.840
this was suggested to me by Bill Browder, the financier and activist who was behind the Magnitsky
00:22:05.320
sanctions, is what he called the Navalny Act. Russia has north of $300 billion in frozen assets
00:22:12.080
in Western institutions. They were frozen after the war. We should seize them and give them to Ukraine.
00:22:20.200
If the Republicans want to say it's too expensive for us to underwrite Ukraine's defense, we'll give
00:22:26.200
them Russia's money and let a portion of that money go to the purchase of weapons from the West. It would
00:22:32.940
be a real signal to Putin that this kind of action has devastating consequences and hits him right next
00:22:42.500
to his most precious assets, right in his wallet. That would be one thing. The next thing is there's
00:22:47.020
an election in Russia, a quote-unquote presidential election next month. Gary Kasparov, the great chess
00:22:52.640
player and also human rights activist, he said, just don't recognize Putin's legitimacy. That's another
00:22:57.300
thing that Putin craves in addition to money. He craves the trappings of political legitimacy.
00:23:03.740
Stand up for other dissidents. And let's finally, let's just give the Ukrainians the weapons they've
00:23:08.900
been asking for for two years so they can start to hold Russian targets at much greater risk.
00:23:15.280
What about the concern that I haven't heard it voiced much of late, but it was certainly voiced
00:23:21.140
early on in the war when we began to support Ukraine that we're poking a nuclear tiger with a stick and
00:23:31.060
perhaps not a, you know, more and more a tiger that has nothing left to lose. And so it's really the
00:23:39.680
threat of nuclear blackmail here that we're being told we should acquiesce to. On some level, we can't
00:23:47.900
afford to help, we meaning not just the U.S., but Europe, we can't afford to help Ukraine win,
00:23:54.780
truly win here, because that would leave Putin with more or less nothing left to lose and a kind
00:24:02.260
of existential threat, you know, politically and even mortally on his own side. And he might, in fact,
00:24:07.800
just decide to let the big bombs fly at that point. Well, look, Putin has been blackmailing us,
00:24:14.100
is blackmailing us with nuclear threats. His sidekick Medvedev routinely issues these unsubtle
00:24:22.920
threats. You can't ever discount the possibility that bad people with nuclear weapons might use them.
00:24:31.020
On the other hand, we've lived now, what, since Soviet Union detonated its first bomb in 1949,
00:24:39.200
so we've lived with 75 years of bad guys having nuclear weapons, and they haven't used them yet.
00:24:46.020
And the reasons for that turn out to be pretty good ones. Take just one side of this, Sam,
00:24:55.160
which is the question of tactical nuclear weapons. People were very worried that Putin might deploy
00:25:00.020
these so-called small nukes, you know, one kiloton, five kilotons. I mean, they're major,
00:25:04.760
they're huge bombs, but by the standard of strategic nuclear weapons, they're relatively
00:25:11.180
small. And seen from a military angle, they really don't make a lot of sense, not least because if
00:25:19.080
Putin were to deploy them, A, we would know at least a week in advance because of our intelligence.
00:25:25.860
I'm told this by people who know. B, the Russians would have to clear the battlefield. That is to
00:25:32.960
say they would have to retreat from the front lines if they were going to deploy one of these weapons
00:25:37.020
and not incinerate their own people. So that would give us further advance notice. The third thing is
00:25:42.420
they're destroying the very ground they seek to conquer, and not just destroying it, but rendering it,
00:25:48.700
you know, uninhabitable for decades. And D, the Russians would need thousands of nuclear suits,
00:25:56.920
you know, radioactive suits for their troops operating in the vicinity, and they just don't
00:26:01.120
have them. So those are just, they add up to a very good reason not to use these bombs. These bombs
00:26:07.220
were first developed and deployed with the idea of massive concentrations of Russian armor coming
00:26:14.700
across very narrow, defined places in West Germany during the Cold War, where a one kiloton Western
00:26:22.280
nuclear weapon would make sense in killing a lot of Russian troops. It doesn't work quite as well
00:26:28.440
on the Ukrainian battlefield, which again, doesn't make it impossible. It just makes it highly unlikely.
00:26:34.460
And it's also important not to allow ourselves to be implicitly threatened by this kind of blackmail,
00:26:42.320
because it, of course, it just advances Russia's war aims. I mean, Putin wants very much to win in
00:26:48.740
Ukraine. But what he really doesn't want is to be completely incinerated. And someone made the point,
00:26:54.540
remember during COVID when Putin would sit on one end of some 40-foot table, and, you know, Macron or
00:27:00.760
whoever was visiting him would sit at the end? A guy who's this afraid of COVID probably doesn't want to
00:27:06.900
start a thermonuclear exchange with the West, which would be considerably worse than COVID for his
00:27:14.020
own personal health. What about the idea that he really just wants Ukraine and would be happy to
00:27:23.140
stop there for, you know, reasons of the historical fictitiousness of Ukraine as a nation and its
00:27:30.820
belonging to Mother Russia? And he really has no further designs on Europe. What makes the concern
00:27:38.300
that there's no stopping point, no natural stopping point, if we just let him take Ukraine,
00:27:44.860
a rational one? I would imagine the Tucker Carlson camp is highly skeptical that he is going to be
00:27:54.200
Look, Lithuanians who lived under the Soviet Union up until 1991, the Estonians, all the Baltic
00:28:01.780
states, they have a different view and a better informed view, which is that the Soviet, Russia,
00:28:07.760
I should say, Russia, almost by its nature, is an expansionary power. And so the argument that
00:28:15.860
he's satisfied with Ukraine alone defies the long course of Russian history. So whoever would come after
00:28:23.260
Putin, if he were sort of a dictator in the same vein, would then look for, let's say, softer targets,
00:28:30.720
Moldova, for example, or targets to the south in the Caucasus seeking to reconstitute the Soviet
00:28:38.380
empire. And it was observed by a historian in the 20th century that when Russia is internally weak,
00:28:46.100
and it is, it tends to be more expansionary in its aim. So there's a long history here which argues
00:28:55.640
against the case that Putin is satisfied with Ukraine or a portion of Ukraine alone. It's also,
00:29:04.300
it just runs against everything we know about dictatorships. I mean, the expression drunk on
00:29:11.040
power is a cliche, but it's a good expression because power is like alcohol, and dictators are
00:29:19.000
like alcoholics, and they're not satisfied with just one drink. People thought that Hitler would
00:29:24.360
be satisfied with the Sudetenland, and that was the basis for the Munich Agreement in 1938,
00:29:28.940
or with, you know, the Anschluss with Austria, because, well, Austria is in a sense, you know,
00:29:35.000
a German-speaking country. Then it was Poland, then it was, you know, the Lebensraum, and so on.
00:29:42.220
So I think it's just crazy to indulge this kind of thinking, particularly given that Putin's track
00:29:47.080
record before Ukraine was the invasion of Georgia in 2008, various threats against European neighbors,
00:29:54.600
cyber attacks on Estonia, one thing or another. This is not something that, he's shown no example of
00:30:02.320
having a restricted appetite in other theaters. No evidence.
00:30:07.960
Okay, well, let's move to the Middle East, where Russia has also had a malign influence
00:30:12.920
in Syria and elsewhere. The war in Gaza, and the perception of now much of the world that
00:30:19.120
Israel has lost the moral high ground if it ever retained it even for a second. I mean, as you know,
00:30:26.120
much of the world felt that it wasn't on the high ground even on October 8th before it had done
00:30:33.360
anything in response to the atrocities of October 7th, which is, that was fairly bewildering.
00:30:38.940
What do you make of, you can take any piece of this ghastly puzzle you want first, but, you know,
00:30:44.560
I'm thinking of things like the isolation of Israel at the UN and the International Criminal Court
00:30:48.740
of Justice, the waning support in the Biden administration. Perhaps we could give the most
00:30:54.860
charitable construal of concern about the right-wing side of Israeli politics and settlements in the
00:31:01.300
West Bank and how those things are unhelpful at best. But, you know, we've got charges of apartheid
00:31:08.300
and just what seems to me a dangerous level of moral confusion on the part of many people in powers
00:31:17.460
that should know better around what is happening in Israel and what Israel's strategic and really
00:31:26.280
existential needs are at this point. How do you view it?
00:31:30.300
Look, let's separate two forms of critique of Israel. One is a critique that Israel has deferred
00:31:40.200
too long the question of Palestinian statehood, that its policies in the West Bank are wrong,
00:31:49.440
If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at
00:31:54.400
samharris.org. Once you do, you'll get access to all full-length episodes of the Making Sense
00:31:59.700
podcast. The podcast is available to everyone through our scholarship program, so if you can't
00:32:04.900
afford a subscription, please request a free account on the website. The Making Sense podcast
00:32:09.920
is ad-free and relies entirely on listener support, and you can subscribe now at samharris.org.