Russian Roulette – Episode Summary

Podcast: Russian Roulette
Episode: Michael McFaul on Trump, Putin, and Autocrats vs. Democrats
Date: September 22, 2025
Host(s): Max Bergman & Maria Snigovaya
Guest: Ambassador Michael McFaul

Overview

This episode features a deep dive into the evolving dynamics of global power politics, focusing on Russia, its autocratic tendencies under Vladimir Putin, the U.S.'s approach under President Trump, and the broader struggle between autocrats and democrats worldwide. Ambassador Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia and author of the forthcoming book Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America and the New Global Disorder, joins hosts Max Bergman and Maria Snigovaya for an extensive, critical, and sometimes personal conversation. They discuss Russia's shifting influence, the limits of autocratic alliances, the impact of Trump’s foreign policy, the resilience (and exhaustion) of Ukraine, and revisit the legacy of previous U.S.–Russia “resets.”

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Russia’s Shifting Influence and Decline

• Middle East & Global Standing
  • McFaul reflects on Russia’s diminished influence in the Middle East, comparing its robust position during his ambassadorship to current times. He points to weakened proxies (like Hezbollah and Hamas), the precarious status of Assad, Iranian disappointment in Russia after recent attacks, and general isolation.
  • Quote:

    "Russia’s influence in the Middle East is significantly smaller than it used to be." — Michael McFaul [07:30]

• Global Isolation
  • Russia is seen as being far less influential and far more isolated than 10 or 20 years ago, with the major exception of its relationship with China.
  • Despite diplomatic setbacks, Russia has successfully promoted “Putinism”—illiberal nationalism—especially in Europe and the U.S., underlining a growing ideological struggle.

2. Autocrats vs. Democrats: Central Theses of McFaul’s Book

• Structure & Motivation
  • McFaul outlines his book’s tripartite structure: historical context, the present competition among great powers, and ideological rivalry.
  • He aims to emphasize “the gray area” and complexities, challenging reductionist “cold war” analogies.
  • Quote:

    “I am done writing books. There are other ways to express oneself, including like we're doing right now.” — Michael McFaul [10:22]

• China vs. Russia: Capabilities vs. Intentions
  • While China outpaces Russia in most “capabilities” measures (military, economy, global investment), Russia under Putin is far more revisionist and prone to destabilizing aggression.
  • Quote:

    “We constantly underestimate the threat from Russia... Russia’s the more rogue state, Russia’s the more revisionist state.” — Michael McFaul [13:10]

• Ideological Competition
  • The Putin project (illiberal nationalism) is directed more toward the developed world, while Xi’s anti-liberal model has traction in the Global South.
  • He argues against claims equating today’s ideological struggle with the scope of the Cold War, noting distinctions in the ambitions and nature of China’s challenge.

3. Trump’s Russia Policy and Ukraine

Trump 2.0’s “Engagement” and Its Limits

• McFaul gives Trump guarded credit for seeking an end to the Ukraine war through diplomacy, but criticizes the administration’s overreliance on inducements and lack of coercive measures (sanctions, military support).
• Quote:

  “You get judged... by results, not by participation.” — Michael McFaul [18:48]

• He draws a parallel to Trump’s failed outreach to North Korea and points out risks of U.S. disengagement.

The Future of the War and U.S. Support

• The trend is toward reduced military aid, plateaued sanctions, and a drift toward U.S. disengagement—outcomes Ukrainian and global observers fear will embolden autocracies elsewhere (e.g., China regarding Taiwan).
• McFaul is “embarrassed” as an American by the shift from supporting Ukraine to profiting from arms sales.
• Quote:

  “We are now making money off of the Ukraine war and not helping the Ukrainians. I find that... embarrassing.” — Michael McFaul [25:03]

• He points out easy, unrealized economic steps (secondary sanctions, dealing with the shadow fleet, transferring Russian central bank assets) and predicts more stagnation unless Washington’s approach changes.

Prospects for Ukraine and Russia

• No imminent end to the war is anticipated. Ukrainians are exhausted but largely unwilling to capitulate; Russian society is fatigued but not mobilizing against the war.
• Quote:

  “I don’t see any serious evidence to suggest a societal pressure to end the war... tragically, I think, is the truth.” — Michael McFaul [49:23]

4. Reassessing Past U.S.–Russia “Resets”

• Maria Snigovaya asks whether the Obama-era reset merits the same criticism leveled at Trump’s attempts.
• McFaul distinguishes the Obama strategy, noting it had clear objectives (e.g., new START Treaty, Iran sanctions), explicit values, and dual-track engagement (with government and society)—contrasting this with Trump’s engagement for engagement’s sake.
• Quote:

  “The meeting, the summit, is a means to an end. It’s not an end in and of itself.” — Michael McFaul [39:47]

5. Inside Russia: Public Sentiment and Elite Attitudes

• McFaul is candid about his limits in assessing Russian public mood but offers a typology:
  • Hardcore supporters: Analogous to U.S. MAGA base; older, rural, lower education/income.
  • Opponents: Young, urban, wealthy—dislike the war, but are politically inactive.
  • Passive majority: Apolitical, support whoever leads.
• Russian elites, especially economic ones, remain dismayed by the consequences of the war but show little courage or ability to change course.

6. Debates on Blame: Is It Putin or Russian Society?

• Drawing on a discussion with Russian blogger Yuri Dud, McFaul explains his evolving views: while Putin’s agency was crucial early on, years of dictatorship have inevitably shaped broader societal attitudes, making the war not just “Putin’s war” but in some respects “Russia’s war.”
• McFaul acknowledges internal debate and regrets over phrasing, recognizing the complexity and pain of assigning collective responsibility.
• Quote:

  “The idea that there’s not some societal responsibility, it’s not black and white, but it’s also not just that they have no responsibility. I think they do.” — Michael McFaul [57:10]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the dangers of simplistic analysis:

  “One of the tragedies of the international relations academic debate in particular is we just get into this like you gotta, you gotta pick one variable and you gotta ride it...”
  — Michael McFaul [51:11]

• On accountability:

  “There are Russians inside Russia that agree 100% with me. They are friends of mine... They feel this responsibility. They feel that.”
  — Michael McFaul [57:56]

• On U.S. global credibility:

  “The whole world is watching. If we retreat, I think that means a lot of other countries around the world are going to think, well, maybe I better hedge my bets and lean a little bit more towards Beijing and a little less towards Washington.”
  — Michael McFaul [20:48]

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment/Topic | |------------|----------------------------------------------------| | 00:15 | Guest introduction & background | | 02:17 | Russia in the Middle East, the shifting alliances | | 09:39 | Overview of McFaul’s book, “Autocrats vs. Democrats” | | 13:10 | China vs Russia: Capabilities and intentions | | 16:04 | Putin’s Ukraine war and implications | | 17:00 | Trump 2.0’s engagement with Putin | | 24:38 | U.S. disengagement—military and economic assistance to Ukraine | | 32:11 | Revisiting the Obama-era Reset | | 41:56 | Changes in Russia’s political landscape and public | | 49:41 | Is Putin solely to blame? Russian society’s role | | 51:11 | Perspectives on blame and analytical complexity | | 57:10 | Reflections on Russian societal responsibility |

Final Takeaways

• Russia’s global influence is waning—even among traditional partners—yet its ideological impact in the West is underestimated.
• China’s rise is serious but fundamentally different in intention and scope compared to Russia’s revisionist aims under Putin.
• McFaul is critical of the Trump administration's purely diplomatic approach to Russia, pushing for a combination of engagement and coercive measures.
• There is little sign of Russian societal pressure to end the war; elite and public fatigue exists, but without the will or means to act.
• The legacy of U.S.–Russia engagement is complex; successes depended on explicit goals and values, not engagement for its own sake.
• Responsibility for the war, initially focused on Putin, increasingly implicates wider Russian society due to decades of dictatorship and indifference.

This episode offers a nuanced, at times personal, exploration of geopolitics shaped by power, personality, and ideology, making it essential listening for anyone seeking to understand the present and future of U.S.–Russia relations.