B (4:05)

Gary, I don't know that for the rest of us, the first thing that came into our heads was Kukli. So maybe you can explain what Kukli is like. Do you have a memory of it? I just want to raise it in people's imagination. Like what is.

D (4:17)

Thank you very much for reminding me about the golden era in Russia. It was a very short one. So the so called tumultuous 90s, but we had. It was feeble democracy, but it was freedom of speech. Actually, Cookley was on air for six years and they have been, I mean, pushing really the limits. I mean, they attacked Yeltsin, they mocked him and Yeltsin, some of the Yeltsin's closest advisors. Actually Yeltsin's attorney general, 1995, tried to shut down Kukuly, but he lost his job.

C (4:49)

So it's.

D (4:50)

And naturally Putin hated it.

B (4:52)

And was it like what we are familiar with, like Jon Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel, they were puppets.

D (4:57)

But trust me, this is this. They were. They in many instances they went much further than Kimmel or Stewart. So it was really tough. Yeah. And again, this is the. I think maybe the Yeltsin liked it. Yeah, this is.

B (5:09)

Yeah, like they found it funny.

D (5:10)

But again, fact is that, you know, nobody tried to touch them after 1995. You know, the Attorney General failed. So it was number one target for Putin. He actually did two things after being, quote, unquote, elected the President of Russian Federation. One is he restored Soviet anthem just to send a signal. That's what was in mind.

C (5:29)

Second, with new words, with new lyrics.

D (5:31)

No, no, but this music, everybody heard it. Yes. It's still imperial.

B (5:36)

What's the music? Do you remember? Is it like.

C (5:38)

Of course we knew.

B (5:41)

Yeah, that wasn't that good.

D (5:46)

And then he went after Cookley after the show. And as a matter of fact, he used similar tactics because it was not just a letter. It was all about business quarrel, because this company that had Cookley owned money. And this sounds familiar. So that's what immediately came to my mind, because I said, wow, it's all business. That's how they always start. And Putin kept repeating it. Even just when Bush 43 asked him, he said, no, no, no, it was business. Yes, look, it was a company. And this is. It was fair. They say they owe money to Gazprom.

B (6:19)

And yeah, you've used the phrase the Putinization of America.

D (6:24)

Yep, I saw the signs. I saw the signs. I did say, yeah, people always say, no, America is not Russia. Absolutely. But, you know, Even back in 2016, I wrote that Americans would very soon discover that so many things that they believe were carved in stone. It's actually based on traditions. It's not codified. It's just.

B (6:44)

Wait, but so I want to talk about this, because they are different countries. Like, Putin's a KGB official. That's what he has in his history. Trump is a reality TV star. We do have different histories and cultures. Our Constitution is different. Like it is built for tests. They're not exactly the same. So sometimes I go along with you two, and sometimes I think it's.

D (7:05)

Again, it's just the Constitution. It's, I suppose, letter and spirit. I think there's so much in America is built on the spirit. Nobody ever did it before. For instance, you know, every candidate released his or her taxes. Trump said that. No. So it's. And so many things that happen now, it's just within his powers. I said just after the second coming. So that's the big danger. It would not be. That's what he could do illegally, but what he can do within his legal powers because there's so many loopholes. There's the gray area. So, yes, the Constitution is offering us the means to resist, but it doesn't specifically preclude him of doing things. And also, Donald Trump, give him credit, is a Genius of normalizing things that we thought would never happen in this country. I mean, what is Watergate? It happens every day now. So this is in 50 years, you know, something that led to the resignation of the president is absolutely ignored. And every day, Trump is pushing a little bit, you know, this. This step by step in this direction. And the Constitution does not defend itself. In my next article, I'm saying it's just a piece of paper. It's not ironclad. It doesn't defend itself. It offers you opportunity to build your fortifications, but unless you are engaged, he can go around.

C (8:25)

The other point to make is that, of course, America and Russia are different, but the pattern of how an elected leader takes over a political system, takes over a democratic system and changes its nature is something that we've seen before in countries that are also radically different. So I lived through a version of this in Poland, then it lasted for eight years, and then there was an election, and it changed and so on. We watched it in Turkey, we watched it in Hungary, we watched it in Russia. There's a version of it actually in India, you know, so Americans like to think that they're exceptional and special, and we have a long history and so on. But when we look at what Trump, and I think it's more the people around him are doing, we see them following these exact patterns, and we're not seeing the institutions resist. Mostly, we're not seeing Congress resist, because the way our Constitution is written, the checks and balances are the other two branches of government, and one of them is done a bit, the judiciary or, you know, there's. That story hasn't played itself out yet. But what's really missing is Congress. And that speaks to a level, a deeper problem, which is that there's clearly a. I don't know what the right terminology, whether it's decay or decline or deterioration. So the thing that Thomas Jefferson once talked about is Democratic virtue or Democratic spirit, we see is now missing in at least one or a part of one of our political parties. We don't see Republicans who are willing to say, this is against the Constitution. Congress has the right to determine tariffs and taxes, not the president. Congress has the right to decide what happens to government agencies and what they're meant to be doing and who's supposed to work for them. Congress decides what happens in civil service, and they have decided to let these things go and let the president do it. So that's the. You know, it's not that Americans are Russians or America's like Russia or American History resembles Russian history. It's just that the same kinds of tactics that we saw in places like Russia and elsewhere are playing out here, and we're not seeing the resistance that you would expect.

B (10:31)

Can I try one more argument for American exceptionalism? Not the JD Vance version of American exceptionalism, more the Thomas Jefferson version. I recently reread the Declaration of Independence. I think you did something like this, too.

D (10:44)

Yep.

B (10:45)

The difference is America's founding did happen on a very specific date at a very specific time with a very specific idea. And if you. I encourage you all to go read the Declaration of Independence. It's a boring thing to say, but just do it, because you are reading about Trump, like everything they are saying about the King's power, down to tariffs. So that actually gave me a lot of hope because I thought we knew that this was coming. Gary, you're already nodding your head. Why not?

D (11:14)

I also read it a few times recently, but I came to the opposite conclusion. Yes, you're right, it's all about Trump. But the problem is we are seeing the growing number of people, mostly on one side, that are willing to defend this practice. They are no longer afraid of that. So if you want to understand how this administration work, just think about the hearings in the Senate. FBI director was insulting sitting senators. He doesn't care. These people appointed him. I mean, by Constitution, by all the laws, he has to revere them. No, he was insulting them. It was always, it's one man show, actually, for one man and the same with all others. So it's. Yeah, it's fantastic. You have all these laws, but just for a moment, just, you know, look in the mirror and just think hard. If the moment comes Day X, Cash, Patel, Pamboy and Vietnam, will they follow constitution or Donald Trump's order? And when you answer this question, you'll understand that everything is a piece of paper. There are many ways around.

B (12:20)

Okay, one more, one more. The courts in what you guys have seen, in wherever you want to talk about, Poland, Russia, wherever, the courts actually have not perfectly and not in every case shown up a lot.

C (12:32)

It depends on whether the courts themselves have been taken over. Because usually the first thing that happens, and in this country, it's been happening actually over the last two decades. But the first thing that happens is that the would be autocrats, the people who want to undermine the system, take over the courts. This is exactly what happened in Poland. It's a complicated, long story, but the elected government changed the Constitutional Tribunal, which is their equivalent of the Supreme Court, and they managed to do it by changing the retirement age law, like what Israel's tried to do. Exactly. And actually, I think the Israelis were copying the polls. Israelis said that to me. So they were. They changed a whole series of small rules without passing a constitutional law in order to change the nature of the court. And the purpose of that was so that when they began to do things that were unconstitutional, they would get away with it. And they didn't quite get far enough and they thought they had enough controls over the system so that they would never lose an election again, but they were wrong. And so on. However, it has to be said as a little footnote, unpicking that. So getting the courts back to where they were before and figuring out what to do with hundreds of illegally appointed judges and so on, that place during that period is a nightmare. I mean, so putting back the cracked egg after it's been smashed is also very difficult.

D (13:52)

But judges can make a decision, they cannot enforce it. That's why you have three branches of the government. And the first one, Article 1 is Congress. So, yeah, this is, you remember, I think it's in 1833, 34. It's this president Jackson, he had to deal with the Supreme Court ruling against some of the colonies that were trying to steal lands in Georg. And he said, okay, fine, you know, just, I cannot stop them, you know, I'm not going to send troops. Let them enforce it.

C (14:21)

Apparently that's apocryphal. I have to, I have to. He didn't really say that, but that's more or less what happened.

D (14:26)

But more or less what's happened?

C (14:27)

He said. But yes, he said specifically Jackson said, let the judge enforce.

B (14:31)

But Gary, have you seen any signs of that in the courts? You're taking away all hope.

D (14:36)

No, but again, it's the courts.

B (14:37)

Yes, go ahead.

D (14:38)

But I'm just asking the courts, just, you know, the. Most of them are just doing their job. But again, it's the, I mean, let's talk about for instance, the National Guard in the big cities, the blue cities. So now it's all pending and the court decision was. Yeah, it's probably saying it probably was not exactly legalist. But now let's say Donald Trump sends the troops to. You wouldn't call it contempt to the court, but ignoring it, just, you know, just to Chicago or Memphis, any big blue city. It doesn't matter what the court decided. The key is the test. The general that will have to make a decision will be forced to choose between Donald Trump's order and Constitution.

B (15:22)

But let's Just be clear, he actually hasn't. Sending the troops to Memphis is not illegal.

D (15:27)

Not yet. Not yet. Not yet. Again, it happens fast. But he's in the office for just eight orders, less than nine months. And they're moving really fast. They move really fast. And again, the problem is that because he's hold on MAGA base, he through the MAGA base, he controls gop, and through gop, he controls the House. House is silent and with house basically absent. So he can do virtually anything he wants.

C (15:57)

There is one court case that he hasn't enforced. This is actually the TikTok case, but this is an ongoing story. But I think it's true that for the moment he's been, they've been skirting around trying to defy the Supreme Court openly. But I agree with Gary that we could get there.

B (16:15)

We could get there.

C (16:16)

We could get there.

D (16:19)

The big test is next year, the midterm. Let's you remember, Donald Trump doesn't lose elections. He said it. Donald Trump doesn't accept bad numbers. They don't exist. He lives in the world of his own reality. On January 6, 2021, he tried to overturn the elections. He had to rely on the mob and few elected officials. Now he will do the same. And for me, it's not if, it's when, but he will have FBI, doj, ice, same mob and more elected officials on his side to do things.

B (16:53)

What exactly like what are you saying?

D (16:56)

Oh, there's many ways of influencing elections. If you think that the numbers will secure the victory for Democrats and that you can rely heavily on health care or tariffs, that's not enough. FBI will be a player. Unless Democrats can actually change situation on the floor of the House, FBI and DOJ will be a player. How many law firms acquiesced? How many big companies acquiesced? So at one point you'll discover that, you know, there's probably, there's not enough money available just to run the campaign because they will be attacked. They'll find how to lose.

C (17:29)

So yes, to be clear, what the way you. Again, it's like modern censorship is different from the old fashioned way and manipulating elections is also different from what it was. And so, you know, you don't just take the big pile of votes and steal them and move them in another room. What you do is you try to create the conditions for the election to be in your favor so you, you get rid of a level playing field and you make it unlevel so that it works in your favor.

B (17:56)

Like gerrymandering. Or what?

C (17:58)

So gerrymandering is a big part of the story. So, I mean, you saw what just happened in Texas. The Trump administration is pushing other Republican states to do the same. This is why it's very important that Newsom responded the way he did. Ugly as it is that he wants to gerrymander California, it's very important that he drew attention to this as a phenomenon. Gerrymandering goes a long conversation. Gerrymandering goes back a long time. A lot of people have done it. This is the first time I'm aware of that the federal government, that the president has got involved in telling a state to gerrymander so as to help him, so as to assist his White House. And the decision of the Texas governor to do it now is out of turn. It's not. When it's, you know, these borders aren't normally rewritten at this point in the, in the cycle. It's usually. It's every 10 years. It's to do with when the census is taken. And so this is. This is already one thing that's unprecedented. The second thing that's unprecedented is the. The federal government has been demanding voter rolls from states allegedly looking for fraud or allegedly they're trying to create some kind of national voter race. It's not clear what. And we had versions of this, actually, in the 2024 election. There was some evidence of this, some kind of games beginning to play, too. So they're beginning to look at how they can legally push people off the voter rolls. I mean, it's hard to steal midterms because the rules are different in every state and so on. But what they're trying to do is set conditions that will make it much harder for the Democrats to win. That doesn't mean, by the way, again, to go back to another example, you know, In Poland in 2023, this is exactly what happened. They tried to create conditions whereby the ruling party, it was called the Law and Justice Party, were sure that they would win because they created the rules that would make them win. And actually, there was a huge turnout. The voters voted in very, very high numbers, and they lost anyway, which they were very surprised by. And when they lost, it was funny. They didn't have a Plan B. Like, they were so sure they were going to win that they didn't plan to steal the numbers or fake the numbers. And then when they lost, they didn't know what to do. And there was a period when they were kind of disoriented. But what you're going to see over the next year is all kinds of small things. And it will be different in different states. And what they will do is try to shape a situation whereby they win and we could get done. I mean, we saw in 2020, we know that the president called up the Secretary of State of Georgia and said, what was it? I'm missing 9,000 votes. Could you just get me 9,000 votes? I mean, we could have that again in a state and we could have it in a state where the Secretary of State agrees.

B (20:34)

We're going to take a short break and we'll be back in a minute with more from Ann Applebaum and Gary Kasparov.

A (20:45)

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should. One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contract. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it.

D (21:01)

Are you, are you playing me off?

A (21:03)

That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.

B (21:08)

Payment of $45 per three month plan.

C (21:09)

$15 per month equivalent required.

B (21:11)

New customer offer first three months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. Cementmobile.com okay, I'm going to ask you a question that I don't want to ask you and then I'm going to close my eyes and as you answer, 2026.

D (21:33)

Most faithful election in American history.

B (21:35)

Most what?

D (21:36)

Fateful elections in American history. If Democrats do not retake the house, the 2028 will be formality. That's it. You know, then I'm afraid the show Autocrats in America, the show will be shut down.

C (21:50)

Hannah and I will run it in the underground. Yes, we'll run it in the underground in this room.

B (21:55)

Okay. 2028.

D (21:57)

No, it's this.

C (21:59)

202020 is too far.

D (22:01)

2026, this is the battlefield. You have to make sure that the Congress, that's Article 1 of the Constitution, will take a stand against Donald Trump. And by the way, I believe the Democrats should actually start working on it now. There are five Republicans, the five members of the House that separate Donald Trump from pushing his agenda. Three of GOP members, they are retiring. So make them an offer they cannot reject. All you need, you need five votes and it's again, be active. Try offer them speakership. I'm just, you know, people. People are people. So let's create campaigns. You know, just create conditions where a lot of them will feel uncomfortable and maybe some of them will be Lured by the great opportunities. But try fight people before, too. No one is fighting now. That's the problem. So. And by the way, never accept any deals with Republicans. Shut down. Shut down. It's bad. But remember, this government is not working for us. It's against us. So just this, no deals. Donald Trump doesn't believe that Democrats exist. He said it, not me. Ah, don't deal with them. It says this. He is really de facto running one party system. Don't make deals with him. Just fight at every opportunity you have.

C (23:09)

There's another thing that we're seeing here that I've also seen in other countries is that when I feel like that.

B (23:13)

Should have been an applause, I don't know why I feel like, you know, fight like. I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

C (23:22)

I was going to say another thing that we're seeing here that we also see in other countries is when you have a political party come to power that seeks to change the rules. And another country I didn't mention, actually is Venezuela, where this very much was true, that seeks to change the rules. Doesn't have to be right wing. It can also be left wing. So they seek to change the rules. One of the things that happens is that the political opposition immediately fragments and they immediately don't know what to do. And this is like, you can look at every. You can look at Hungary, you can look at Poland, you can look at Venezuela.

B (23:55)

So is that what's happening now with the.

C (23:56)

I think it's what's happening because the old rules and the old ways by which people made political careers and by which they did messaging and did campaigning aren't working anymore and nobody really knows why. And the new rules aren't clear yet. And actually, I think that what we're seeing Democrats doing, I have a little bit more patience with them than Gary does, is you see a lot of different people trying different things. And so like Mamdani, like Mamdani, for example, he's trying, you know, to reach young people in a new way.

B (24:28)

Who else? Just so that we can start looking around.

C (24:31)

Chris Murphy, okay, Who's a senator from Connecticut who's made it his business to be constantly on social media and to be talking all the time and to, you know, to go around the country and speak aoc got a whole bunch of people with Bernie Sanders, held rallies in different cities, including in red states around the country. Gavin Newsom, he's doing something completely different. He decided to use Twitter, which is the most important forum for the sort of far right for the MAGA conversation. And he decided to flip it back on them and make fun of them and use satire and humor to attract attention and to break through and in the algorithms. And that's completely different from what Mamdani is doing. Right, but it's another way of seeking to gain attention and build a constituency. Governor Pritzker in Illinois is another one. And he's very different from Gavin Newsom. You know, he's doing these very heartfelt, very authentic speeches about his. About Chicago, about Illinois, about the history of his family, relating them to the present. And so he's. And he's breaking through in that way. One of those styles will win. I mean, one of them will become the thing that's most popular.

B (25:42)

So why is Gary not with us here?

D (25:46)

Because there are many more red states than blue states. And something that works in New York does not work, actually. It's counterproductive in many other states.

C (25:55)

But Gary. But this is why you need multiple people. The idea that we need one leader.

D (26:02)

My problem is not having the big tent, actually. I'm saying it's very important for us to understand we're fighting just for the soul of American democracy. And he says we have to protect the framework. And within the framework, I'm more than happy to debate with people that disagree with me, but this framework is in grave danger now. That's what Donald Trump is trying to destroy. But to beat Donald Trump, we have to make sure that within this big tent, the leadership of the coalition will be accepted by people in the middle. Because at the end of the day, you still need just to build a coalition to win it. And our coalition is not strong enough. We need people that are just in the middle. And unfortunately, in 2024, many of them shifted to the other side. And one of the reasons, culture war, for instance, they said it. So we have to make sure we'll build a coalition that will concentrate on the key elements of the campaign. And these key elements are just have to be associated with people that have no political liabilities. I'm very happy to work with this grand coalition, but again, as the faces, as the people on the front, the frontliners should be those who will be accepted by the majority, but they also.

C (27:10)

Have to be people who will motivate their base. And they also have to be people who are creative and who are not simply saying, let's go back and have everything be the way it was. There have to be people who have a different kind of inspiring vision.

D (27:25)

There are so many tools available for American citizens to Put pressure on members of the House, on senators, even on administration, on local governors. You can just, you know, you can go to demonstrate on the streets. You know, it's not Russia. It's not, God forbid. There are many ways for Americans to demonstrate that they disagree with the current policies. But to do that temperament, you have to be engaged, and you have to understand that it's a real battle. And stop thinking about 2028. As Ann said, it's 2026. And even just every month, every week between now and 2026 elections, make sure that we'll be ready if, God forbid, they'll try to do things. And Ann didn't even mention this. It's the social networks. In one of the episodes in the podcast, I talked to Gary Marcos, the expert on AI and neuroscience. So we talked about techno fascism. There's so many subtle ways of influencing elections. Again, make sure we're ready for this battle. And I like our chances. It's much better than Russia. Probably it's as good as in Poland, Even better. But Poles knew they had to fight. So this is. Please recognize it's a fight. And it's not 2028, it's now.

C (28:42)

Yeah. The thing I like to say is that people often ask me, what should I do? Or what can ordinary people do? And the thing the answer to that question is, it depends who you are. You know, if your job is, you know, if you're a lawyer, then work pro bono on some of the cases that you know, that will determine which way the system goes. You know, if you are a teacher, make sure that you are teaching children about the nature of our police political system. You know, you can demonstrate, you can join a political party, you can join an organization, you can contribute to organizations. And very often by being engaged, in other words, by doing something, then it will become clear to you what to do next. So it's by being involved that you understand how to become more useful. And I also. The other thing, and I found this very much in Poland as well. For those of you who don't know, I live there part of the time is that also by doing something, by being engaged, you feel better. I mean, so you don't feel like you're helpless and history is washing over you and you can't do anything. If you're involved, then you're doing something, and it will be. That's the way to fight pessimism.

B (29:55)

Gary, you mentioned this, but I think it's important to illuminate in detail. This is where you did say we are different From Russia, there are things that you can do. So what is the experience in Russia of this moment in the playbook for an average citizen versus the experience in the U.S. i think it will just, like, let some air in the room to know that we do have options. We're not in Russia.

C (30:17)

No, no. Compared to, say, 2010.

B (30:19)

So take the moment when Putin bans Kukli, like the moment we started out talking with.

D (30:25)

It was actually the beginning. It was year 2000.

B (30:28)

Right. So you take that moment. What the. Our options, as you said, are different and better, and we have more of them. And I want people to understand that.

C (30:37)

What was it that Russians couldn't do in 2000 that we can do now?

B (30:41)

Yeah.

D (30:41)

Oh, yeah. This is. Look, Russia didn't have the same traditions of democracy.

B (30:45)

Great.

C (30:46)

Russia, Russia, no political parties. It's the.

D (30:48)

It was all, no, no, no look. It's the. No.

B (30:51)

This is where the inner.

D (30:54)

Yeah. And the KGB was still too strong, so the oligarchs had no interest in defending democracy. So it's the. Look, it's nothing to compare. So this. But, you know, the fact is that Russia in 2000 was so different from America in 2025 should not make you feel happy. So this is because. No, because it's just difference. It may disappear because Donald Trump shows determination to destroy the checks and balances. So you have a bully there. And again, imagine is the man lies every minute. So I think we have to just find just, you know, just a unique opportunity just to. Caught him saying the truth. Yeah. And it works. And it's not just him being there. It's just so many sycophants around. And you have many intelligent people there that keep repeating the same lies again. That tells you that, you know, this is. We already, the critical mass of people have been willing to cross the red line. We're not yet there, but, you know, we have to fight. So this is. And there's still many opportunities here. But remember, again, it's the Constitution. It just doesn't defend itself. It's just. It's.

C (32:05)

It's.

D (32:05)

It's. You have tools, phenomenal tools. It was created by founding fathers, but I don't think Americans ever just, you know, face this kind of threat. So it's a different. I would say it's somehow even worse than civil war, because again, this is. Now you have a seating president trying to undermine the constitutional principles. In 1861, it was easy. Okay. You have, you know, this is the renegades, the Confederacy, the war. Now it's the. It's enemies within. So this is. It's no, by the way, when you look at the world now, I grew up in the world and Adam grew up in the world when we knew, you know, there was this iron curtain, you know, this is the unfree world, free world. America, the beacon of hope, you know, guardian of freedom. Now, when you talk about autocrats and Democrats, you know, there's no geographical border anymore.

C (32:50)

No. Yeah. One of the points that I make in the book I published last year was that this competition between autocratic ideas and democratic ideas is not. It's not a new cold war. It's not this. One guy's on one side of the wall and the other's on the other. It takes place inside every country. It takes place in the US in the uk, In Poland, also in Russia. I mean, there's a.

D (33:14)

It's over for a moment, it's a.

C (33:15)

Little more, but for the moment it's over. But I mean, think, you know, the most successful political movement in Russia in recent years was an anti corruption movement, which was essentially a rule of law movement. And so the idea that rule of law and transparency and accountability are important is something that at least some Russians.

D (33:31)

Understand, some that unfortunately it is.

B (33:34)

And why does it matter that it's internal versus on one side and the other side? Why does that change dynamic?

C (33:40)

Because it's much easier for all of us to say we're all together against the foreign enemy, whatever, against the aliens, against the communists, against the people who want to. And then you create a sense of national identity and unity and so on. We don't have that now. The division is inside us and it's inside families. I'm sure many people here have had this experience or inside friendships or friend circles, and that makes it much harder to negotiate and much harder to recreate a narrative of unity once again.

B (34:10)

Although I have noticed, one positive thing I've noticed is that there are counter reactions to Trump. Like in Canada, you see different countries saying, we don't want to go there. It's sort of like we've become the enemy in a certain way.

D (34:23)

I was in Canada two days ago, just had a speech there. Great audience. Pro Ukrainian, anti Trump.

C (34:30)

Yeah, actually I was just uploaded.

D (34:33)

What have I said?

C (34:36)

I was in Sweden last week actually, and I also talked to a lot of people there. And there you have this 100% unity in support of Ukraine and against Russia. And part of that, part of where that's coming from is, I would describe it almost as fear of the United States.

B (34:53)

Right.

C (34:54)

You know, that they understand they now need to be together because they're.

D (34:57)

Sweden. Yes, Sweden, yes. But when you look at some other countries, Germany, the most popular party in the polls now, AfD Alternative for Germany. That's almost openly. It's not just Neo nasses, it's on the Putin's payroll.

C (35:09)

Yeah. It's a party that was created with Russian money and Russian influence campaigns.

B (35:14)

So maybe we can end by just talking about the world realignment outside our borders. We've just talked about the positive elements of that. The US has become a kind of, you know, warning signal to some countries. But then there's, you know, there was the recent meeting with Russia, China and North Korea. You just visited Sudan to talk about the threat of the US Kind of carrying out further. What do you guys see in the broader world?

C (35:37)

That is what you see in the broader world and is almost total collapse of faith and belief in the United States and a kind of shift shock that is still, the waves are still coursing as people try to understand what does it mean that the United States isn't the leader of the democratic camp anymore? The democratic world, it's not just Europe, it's Europe and Asia and elsewhere. And how does that affect our trade relations with America? And how does that affect the way we think about our defense? And how does that affect the way we think about social media, which is all American, mostly American. And so you have this. It's almost a constant topic in the domestic politics of all of our allies. How do we rethink who we are and what we do? Given that the United States is not what we expected? I don't think you can understate the amount of shock and disruption it's caused.

D (36:31)

Yeah, you mentioned this, the summit. It was not just Russia and North Korea. There were many other countries there. You may call it this dictators international, but I think what was important was not just a meeting. It was a meeting where Xi Jinping was crowned as the capo de tutti kapi of this international authoritarian network. I think if you remember the picture when he was, you know, just, he was in front and then Putin on his right hand and Kim Jin on his left hand and, you know, body language. I mean, Putin was, it's subordinate. And by the way, Russia is a Chinese satellite now. I always call it, you know, it's a Chinese gas station with nukes. And Putin follows Chinese orders. Xi Jinping needs this war in Ukraine. So that's why expecting Russia to be bankrupt is probably a bit of an exaggeration, because the War helps him. It's as Russia is getting weaker. And since China is the only country that has a massive territorial claim to Russia, it's 1.5 million square kilometers, three times France. The entire territory of Vladivostok to Irkutsk used to be China prior to 1860. And China now believes it's time to.

C (37:42)

And the Chinese have now produced maps that have the Chinese name of Vladivostoko.

D (37:48)

And it's the first time since 1960 the Chinese customers working there. Yes, but the one element you just remember, because dictators always pay attention to symbolism. First time I saw Xi Jinping wearing Mao's outfit. Suit, not a Western suit. Everybody else was wearing a Western suit. He's a leader, you know, and it's China. But again, what do you expect? You know, there's no vacuum in geopolitics. If America moves out, somebody gets in, and guess who will be in. So it's a real challenge. And I wrote an article for Die Welt German paper. And I said, we saw maybe not yet the New World Order, but definitely a bit for the New World Order. And American corruption and European impotence are as cornerstones.

B (38:34)

Okay, so this is our last thing. I'm gonna summarize what I think, you guys, the message you're sending to this audience, and you can correct my summary. At stake in the 2026 election is not just the future of democracy, but the alignment of the entire world. And that's what the stakes are for us. I don't want to overwhelm people and think, well, it's just one bully. We can take it. But if it's like one bu. A bunch of dictators here, an entire culture, forget it.

D (39:03)

We are fighting not Donald Trump, but Trumpism as a phenomenon. And that's why you have Nigel Farage in Britain, you have Le Pen in France, you have AfD in Germany, you have Orban. It's a global phenomena, and unless we can defeat it here, chances elsewhere are not looking good.

B (39:23)

I'm going to say this without irony. Thank you for inspiring us to fight. Thank you. This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Kevin Townsend. It was edited by Andrea Valdez. Thank you to all the staff at Atlantic Live for helping organize this event at this year's Atlantic Festival. Rob Smirciak is our engineer. Claudina Baid is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. Listeners, if you like what you hear on Radio Atlantic, you can support our work and the work of all Atlantic journalists when you subscribe. To the atlantic@theatlantic.com listener. I'm Hanna Rosen. Thank you for listening.

D (40:21)

Sam.