Anne Applebaum (1:55)

That's beautiful. You might want to post. Do you have an Instagram? Are you an Instagram?

Tim Miller (1:58)

I have an Instagram and I have already posted pictures of my wildflower gardens.

Anne Applebaum (2:01)

Okay, well, maybe I'm not following that. I've got a following Applebaum on Instagram, it turns out. Okay, wonderful. We'll check that out. Now to real business. I'm going to spend plenty of time on Sudan at the end because it's interesting and has a lot of geopolitical impacts. But we do have, unfortunately, some sad home Front news we've got to get to on your autocracy beat, Tim Apple. Tim Cook, CEO of, you know, one of the most successful companies in the world, worth untold amounts of money, is concerned about the tariffs that the US Is gonna charge on the equipment and his phones. He was a little concerned that the Commerce Secretary, Howard Nutlik, was out there talking about how Americans are gonna start screwing in the screws on the phones. So to take care of that, he was yesterday in the White House and he offered Donald Trump a plaque with a 24 karat gold base. He says this is a unique unit of one. He wanted to let the President know that a former U.S. marine corporal who now works at Apple made it. Congratulations, Mr. President, he says as he gives him this gift. Tom Nichols said these are like the gifts the Politburo members used to give to Brezhnev. I'm wondering what you think about these CEOs having to suck up to Donald Trump with gifts.

Tim Miller (3:12)

The idea that politics has become so personalized that there are no institutions, there are no systems, that the only way you can affect or change policy is by offering a valuable gift to the leader is indeed, I would say, pretty much contradicts everything that the founders intended when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So, no, it's not a good sign. I mean, people give gifts to presidents all the time and that's pretty normal. But you're right, I mean, an ugly thing with a 24 karat gold base designed for no other reason other than to be flattering is a strange gift.

Anne Applebaum (3:55)

Yeah. On live TV from the CEO. And it comes in the context of. During the same press conference, Trump was taking some shots at intel, their CEO. This morning, Tom Cotton was on Maria Bart Romo's show talking about how the Intel CEO has ties to China. Our president that watches a lot of cable news apparently was live tweeting that and, and bleed it out. The CEO of Intel is highly conflicted and must resign immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. So, like, sure, like people give gifts to presidents and like there's back and forth and a trading of gifts at meetings and such. But like, clearly in this case, what you have here is CEOs of these high tech companies, like, feeling like they need to suck up to the President or else they will be punished specifically. And maybe, who knows, maybe the government will even try to push out the CEOs or the executives of these private companies if he doesn't like them. And it is a totally insane banana republic. Not A free market, capitalist democracy. And I think that it's intriguing that no Republicans have said anything. I mean, imagine Barack Obama saying, Rupert Murdoch must resign. There's no other solution to this problem. The entire, like, Republican Senate conference would go crazy. But here we are.

Tim Miller (5:20)

If I can do a Soviet analogy again, one of the reasons why the Soviet Union eventually fell apart was because all these personnel decisions about who should run the company and who should make economic decisions were political. And so you got to run the company if you were a loyal party member and not because you were good at running the company. And you got to be in charge of scientific research, if you could recite Marx's texts forwards and backwards, not because you actually knew anything about science. And that was the reason why the Soviet economy declined and eventually died. And we had two decades of catastrophe in Russia. So there is a connection between how apolitical companies are, how separate they are from political influence, and their ability to do well. You know, it's not just kind of ugly and tacky, which of course it is, but it's also. This is the reason why Americans did used to favor the free market, because they thought that it would produce better outcomes and that, you know, we would become more prosperous. And so the idea that we now have, you know, CEOs afraid for their lives because they might be attacked on X, or somebody might make dumb videos about them on TikTok, or God forbid, somebody should. Some militia group should stand outside of their houses. I mean, I think that that's all part of this. You. It's not just Trump. There's now a system of pressure. There are a lot of people following Trump who will do what he say.

Anne Applebaum (6:52)

And they know that afraid is a key word there. Right. Because there is a culture of fear, I think, in boardrooms around the country where we cannot get crosswise with the leader. And that is a very un American type feeling, certainly in my lifetime. I can't really think of a parallel to that. You know, maybe boardrooms being afraid of, you know, popular uprising against them, of protest, or of, you know, of, you know, people organizing against their brand or something. But that's. That's the market at work. It's the market speaking, like, having. Having to care about the feelings of a single leader. I mean, like, does feel like a. A notable mark towards autocracy. That is different from where we've been before.

Tim Miller (7:38)

No. Yeah. And of course, the irony of the situation is that if all of these CEOs worked together, so if there was a. I mean, maybe it's more difficult. But certainly in the case of universities or in the case of law firms, you know, if they all, you know, each one of them is separately vying for the attention in favor of the president. If instead as a group the tech CEOs said, you know, screw you, we won't do that, then they would have a lot more power and they would get control back. But they don't seem to have figured that out yet. I mean, they seem to each be trying to do a separate deal on the assumption that they can have a special link to the president if they just find the most attractive 24 karat gold item that they'll have the way in. When you're dealing with someone who's operating on whims, you can be in his favor one day and out of his favor the next day. And that's why what you really need is you need to be dealing with rules and institutions and things that aren't the subject to whimsical change. And that's what our system created in the past. As I say, if tech CEOs were thinking harder about this and thinking more long term, then there would be a group effort and we would see it.

Anne Applebaum (8:52)

One more note on the autocracy Watch this morning news from NBC listeners. I remember hearing about Brian Driscoll or the Drizz. He was affectionately known by his colleagues. He was this of a career FBI agent that ended up as the acting FBI director after Ray resigned and Trump and Cash and others, I think Emil Bove was part of this. Had demanded that he fire agents who had investigated the January 6 insurrectionist. The news this morning is he's being forced out of the Bureau according to a source directly familiar we talked about a couple weeks ago to Mike Feinberg similarly, who was essentially forced out. He chose to resign because of his friendship, personal friendship with Pete Strzok was on Cash Patel's enemies list again. I mean that's now we're moving into government service versus private company. But the idea that they would push out an agent who is well regarded by everybody in the bureau solely because I guess he was trying to defend his colleagues who were just doing their job in a previous administration. We don't need to keep going back to Soviet Russia, I guess. But there's some other parallels here, Anne.

Tim Miller (10:05)

The politicization of justice and the politicization of prosecution and investigations, all of that also. I mean you don't have to go that far away. And you can look in our own hemisphere. You can look at lots of other places that Almost always ends badly. I mean what you get is instead of justice, you get, you know, political revenge and cycles of revenge. And the thing that makes me very curious about all this is, you know, okay, the, there's a theory of executive power and the, there are Republicans who believe the President should be able to do whatever he wants and he should be able to have whatever kind of FBI he wants and therefore he should be able to investigate everything. Okay, that's fine. Are they prepared for, you know, I don't know, President Gavin Newsom to have that same kind of power and to use it against them? I mean it seems very strange to me that they're, they're destroying institutions and putting in place this very personalized systems that could then be used by anybody for anything. And I don't really understand what their long term game is either. Their long term game is there won't be free elections or we'll fix the election or we'll steal it or gerrymander it or something. Or they're perfectly prepared for someone who they disagree with, who doesn't like them to be able to use those same tools at some point in the future. And that's the piece of it that mystifies me. Do they understand what the long term implications are? Do they imagine this is something that is only going to be for a year or two or three years rather, and then it's going to go away? Or is the plan that they never lose power again? I genuinely don't know.

Anne Applebaum (11:40)

Yeah, I think some for probably both. For some it's nihilism, it's short term thinking, it's okay, whatever, zero sum, we'll fight this out in the future. But I do wonder that about people with corporate financial incentives, for example, going back to the Fox counterfactual, like looking into how Trump has dealt with CBS and other companies, looking at how he's bullying now CEOs who don't know what they want. Does News Corp. Not think that there won't be pressure on the next Democratic administration to go after them? Imagine how up in arms they were when Barack Obama, like one, I forgot the exact quote was one time he made kind of an aside about how Fox isn't real news or something. I forgot what the exact quote was. But let me tell you, Sean Hannity remembers the quote because he talked about it like for years afterwards. Right. I don't know that, that anymore they will be able to, you know, just wager on the fact that if the Democrats get in power they will be restrained by their own commitment to norms or impulses or weakness or whatever. Like, I think that there will be a lot of pressure on the next Democratic president to go after people that, you know that have been complicit in this up to and including like corporate executives. And the president will have been set for it.

Tim Miller (12:53)

The president will have been set. And also there will be support for it in a way there didn't used to be. Nobody wanted even Joe Biden to go after Fox. I mean, there was no discussion of that or mention of it. But I really feel that the half of the country that doesn't vote for Trump and it is half. I mean, it's whatever it is, 49.1% or something. If that becomes 50.02%, then it's a different group of people now and they will see the world differently. And I'm not saying that's good, but it seems to me like a political fact that it's very strange that the Republicans who are supporting this transformation don't see it.

Anne Applebaum (13:31)

I'm also not saying it's good. It seems inevitable, I guess is my point. And it seems like they've laid the groundwork for it. Think folks are familiar with my kind of on again, off again concern about the neighborhood cat that I've quasi adopted into the home at the behest of my child and husband? Kind of against my will. It was kind of my fault though, because I was stuck on a work trip for during the largest snowstorm in 400 years in New Orleans. And so, you know, we've got Aretha to deal with. We've got the cat. And even though I'm kind of lukewarm about the whole thing, you still feel like an owner. You still want to make the cat happy. So I got to tell you, when you came back from California this week and I saw the cat sitting there on the front porch waiting for its Smalls treats, you know, I felt pretty good about that. This podcast is sponsored by Smalls. Smalls Cat food is protein packed recipes made with preservative free ingredients you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. To get 60% off your first order plus free shipping, head to smalls.com thebullwerk for a limited time only. Smalls was started back in 2017 by a couple of guys home cooking cat food in small batches for their friends. A few short years later, they've served millions of meals to cats across the United States. And now in addition to the regular cat food, they've got a bunch of other cat favorites like amazing treats and snacks that you can add to your Smalls ordered. I gotta tell you, those are Aretha's favorites. The team at Smalls is so confident your cat will love their product, you can try it risk free. That means they will refund if your cat won't eat the food. What are you waiting for? Give your cat the food they deserve for a limited time only because you are a bulwark listener. You can get 60% off your smalls order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com thebullwerk that's 60% off when you head to smalls.com theBullWork plus free shipping. Again, that's smalls.com theBullWork A couple other things around the world before we get to Sudan. We've got the reciprocal tariffs finally went into effect today for most places. Some of the steepest duties include Brazil at 50%, Syria at 41%. I don't know why. Laos and Myanmar 40% Switzerland 39, Canada 30. It's a really meticulous system we've got here. India's at 25, subject to go up to 50 later this month though there's an executive order about that last week because the president can just kind of wave his finger now and do this apparently. Vietnam, Taiwan, 20, EU, Japan, South Korea, 15. I'm curious your view. We did the economics of this yesterday. Josh Barrow but just like the geopolitical impact of this or thoughts and kind of what you're hearing from folks around the world.

Tim Miller (16:24)

So if you think this doesn't affect other areas, you know, defense cooperation, willingness to work with the US on other issues, support for the US and other things that it cares about, then, then, then you're very wrong. And once again, I think what's really disturbing to a lot of people, I heard a lot about Switzerland actually in the last couple of days is the, the whimsical nature of it, you know, that it doesn't seem to be about any logic or process. It's what the president feels like. And you know, Switzerland is an interesting country. It has a rotating presidency. The, the president is one of the members of cabinet. And if you're the, if you're the president of Switzerland, you not used to thinking that way. Like they just can't think that way. You know, they think in terms of institutions and you know, you send someone to negotiate and the negotiators deal with other negotiators and there's a process and at the end of the process there's an agreement. And apparently they were completely caught by surprise by this very high tariff, because that's not what their negotiators were saying. But I don't know, maybe I genuinely didn't know the reason. Maybe Trump doesn't like Switzerland or there's.

Anne Applebaum (17:30)

Something, watches chocolate, watches skiing, maybe, I don't know.

Tim Miller (17:35)

I have no idea.

Anne Applebaum (17:35)

Trump would look kind of silly in a skiing outfit. So maybe it's something about that. It's an aesthetic.

Tim Miller (17:40)

We're literally at that level of speculation that will have all kinds of repercussions. I mean, who's going to want to have any other kind of agreement with the United States? I mean, do you want to have any kind of long term investment in the United States or any kind of agreement about anything else, any political deal, anything the US Wants to do? If the US Has a conflict with China or it wants to anything, it means that people are going to be wary of dealing with such a capricious and, and unpredictable power. I mean, there are also some tragedies here. There was a very good article in the New York Times a few days ago about Lesotho, which is a very, very small African country, which for no reason at all has had, had a very high tariff put on it.

Anne Applebaum (18:24)

Because we have a trade deficit with them is why.

Tim Miller (18:27)

They have one industry, they have one export industry. They export some textiles to the United States. That's it. I don't think they can buy that much. So it's not like there's so many options. And the article was about the devastation that this tariff had wrought in that economy because suddenly people were nervous about investing in Lesotho and companies that had deals suddenly dried up and there's been a kind of panic there. And just this idea that by throwing a number onto a chalkboard or whatever it was, he showed up the first day and by mentioning numbers in the air, you know, you know, it's almost like you, you know, you have this on the other side of the planet, there's this huge reaction and people lose their jobs. It's very disturbing.

Anne Applebaum (19:13)

Also, for no reason, like we're going to make the textiles in America that Lesotho is making. Like it's, it's just, just preposterous.

Tim Miller (19:20)

Well, so how many, how many textiles can Lesotho be making that, you know, that are somehow, you know, in competition with us? Sorry about that.

Anne Applebaum (19:27)

I love that. That's kind of an old timey ring there.

Tim Miller (19:30)

And it's Actually an old, it's an old fashioned phone and nobody ever calls it, so I don't know why it just rang.

Anne Applebaum (19:35)

But anyway, that was kind of charming for me, actually. No apology necessary. Let's move on to Ukraine. So Wyckoff, I guess, was talking to Putin, former real estate guy, buddy of Trump's. Trump bleeds this. My special envoy, Steve Wyckoff just had a highly productive meeting with Putin. Great progress was made, exclamation point. Afterwards, I updated some of our European allies. I thought that was the most encouraging part of the bleep, that he still thinks that there are allies. Everyone agrees this war must come to a close and we'll work towards that in the days and weeks to come. There's some discussion that a Trump Putin meeting could be as early as next week. Russia was indicating that. Russia also is indicating they are not likely to be a trilateral talk with Zelensky. So what do you make of the latest in these conversations?

Tim Miller (20:24)

So there's one really important point to make, which is that President Putin has never said that he wants to end the war. And he has also never given up on his main goal. And his goal is the destruction or the subjugation of Ukraine, the removal of Ukrainian independence, maybe the replacement of the Ukrainian government with a pro Russian government, maybe the incorporation of Ukraine into some Russian empire. It doesn't matter. He's never said that he doesn't believe that anymore. A few days ago, very quite recently, within the last few weeks, he said once again something he said before, which is that every, everywhere that there has ever been a Russian soldier could be part of the Russian empire again. So that includes Berlin, where of course he was a representative of the Soviet empire. And it includes the Baltic states, it includes Poland, it includes lots of places. So he is still using that kind of language. Also within the last couple of weeks, RA Novosti, which is a Russian state kind of news agency, published an article saying that the end game of the war in Ukraine is that all Ukrainians should be killed, you know, destroyed. So they aren't letting up in either in their public rhetoric, either in what they're saying to Russians or in what Putin says. And so that makes me fear that they aren't prepared for any kind of real peace. I mean, it is possible, okay, that the Ukrainian air war, which gets, for reasons I'm not clear about, doesn't get that much attention in press news. So this is Ukrainian drones that, that hit Russian refineries and create these very satisfying explosions that people then pass around on social Media, apparently, that has been doing a lot of damage. You know, they, they've hit refineries, they hit defense plants. There was that famous moment, you know, a couple months ago when they hit a bunch of airplanes on an airfield hundreds of miles from Ukraine. And so maybe Putin is suffering from that. There's some talk maybe he wants some kind of air truce. It's true that his economy has lots of trouble. Maybe, maybe he is looking for some kind of brief pause. But unless there's a, you know, a Russian acknowledgment of Ukraine's right to exist and Ukraine's right to have its own country, then really the war is not over. And so I'm, I still haven't heard that. You know, I'm still waiting for that moment to come.

Anne Applebaum (22:44)

So the Times has an article out this morning. I'm interested in your reaction to it about their analysis of this, because I think it's maybe slightly different than what you just said. They said Putin's overarching goal is primarily to secure a peace deal that achieves his geopolitical aims, not necessarily a certain amount of territory. And Trump's best position to deliver on those aims, which include keeping Ukraine out of NATO and preventing the alliance's further expansion. Do we think that's what Putin's aims are? I don't know. What do you think?

Tim Miller (23:12)

I mean, Ukraine wasn't in NATO before and NATO has expanded since the war began because Sweden and Finland joined NATO.

Anne Applebaum (23:21)

Right.

Tim Miller (23:22)

And so I don't think this has anything to do with NATO in that sense. I mean, the issue for Putin isn't Ukraine being in NATO. Ukraine has never actually been even close to being in NATO. What bothered Putin about Ukraine? First of all, just the idea of its independence because he doesn't recognize it as a real country. Secondly, the fact that Ukraine had this democracy revolution in 2014 that led to their then pro Russian, sort of autocratic president fleeing the country has bothered Putin a lot because that's the kind of revolution and that's the kind of language that he is most afraid of in Russia. You know, there was a really interesting moment a few days ago. You may remember that Zelensky passed a law a few days ago that would have taken away the independence of Ukraine's anti corruption institutions. And then there was a big protest in Kiev and you know, lots of noise about that. And then actually Zelensky reversed the law. There was an interesting comment from Russians saying, criticizing Zelenskyy for having given that up. In other words, this, the fact that Zelenskyy is, you know, even during wartime and even during martial law, is still has to respect public opinion and is still the leader of a democratic country where people have free speech. This is a problem for Putin because, you know, if Ukrainians can have that kind of a democracy, then why can't Russians have it? They are historically close and they have been part of the same empire as before and they are intermarried and a lot of Ukrainians do speak Russian. So for Putin, Ukraine is an ideological problem. NATO is a kind of tertiary thing. Ukraine has never been even close to being in NATO. So that wasn't why the war started. And to make that argument is to accept their propaganda. I mean, certainly it's possible that if Putin did ever want to end the war, maybe he would accept that as a kind of fake condition, but I would still be wary of it. As I said, until the Russians recognize that Ukraine is not Russia and won't be, then I don't think the war is really over.

Anne Applebaum (25:20)

That's an interesting update on the corruption thing because we had Frank, your Atlanta colleague, on God, time's a flat circle. Was that this week or last week? Last week, I think. And we were talking about that. We were kind of talking about how it was a bad judgment call initially from Zelenskyy. It's interesting, I had not heard that, that after he backtracked that, that became kind of a talking point in Russia. Could you just expand on that? Like basically them making the argument that he's, that he's weak or like what was there? Yeah, like he's a beta. Yeah.

Tim Miller (25:48)

Putin's idea is that any institution inside Russia that is not dependent on him is a threat. And that includes, you know, any kind of real opposition, any kind of independent media, any kind of independent organizations, I mean, even non political organizations, you know, historical organizations. For ex. Example, I'm quite close to one that was forced to shut down. This is Memorial, you know, any, any kind of cultural organizations, you know, so the, it's very close to the old totalitarian idea. You know, everything is controlled by me and everything that's not controlled by me is an enemy or some kind of CIA plot. And the idea that in Ukraine there could be independent anti corruption institutions that have the ability to investigate the government is anathema, you know, because of course, for them, you know, corruption is part of who they are. I mean, part, it' part of why they rule. Russia is a state which is where the economy is partly designed to benefit the people who run the country and the people who run the country all have two hats. You know, they are, on the one hand, political figures, and on the other hand they are, you know, they have deep, sometimes control of companies or investments in companies. The Russian economy is the same people who run it. There's no, there's no distinction between the distinction we were just making a few minutes ago between CEOs and the president. I mean, there isn't a distinction like that in Russia. And so for them, the idea that there is an independent anti corruption institute is. I mean, that's terrifying, you know, because an independent anti corruption institution would find Putin to be corrupt in five minutes. So, you know, of course they're against that. I mean, independent anti corruption institutions have their problems. I mean, they can, they can misfunction and so on. That's a longer conversation. But of course they're intolerable and unacceptable in an autocratic state because it means that the, the leader who is making money from politics would be exposed. And of course, the other thing that's typical and maybe essential to autocracy is secrecy. You know, they don't want people to know how much money they have or how the system really works or where the money is invested. And they're against transparency and they're against accountability and they're against all of that. And that's the essence of their system. And of course, to the degree to which there are elements of that kind secrecies creeping into our own system, we should be worried about those too.

Anne Applebaum (28:09)

And that's why it was important, actually, in a lot of ways that Zelenskyy changed course on this right to send a signal of differentiation.

Tim Miller (28:16)

I haven't been there, and I don't know the graphic details of exactly why it happened, but yeah, it's important that he changed.

Anne Applebaum (28:25)

Okay, let's do Sudan before we get into kind of the micro about what is happening. You've been there twice. My eyes were tired last night, so I listened to this story. It was a very lovely British lady that was doing the reading and then looked at just really like I was about to say, wonderful. But the photography is wonderfully done by Lindsey Addario. But, you know, the pictures are pretty gruesome. But before we get into like, the details of Sudan, you kind of broaden it out to this, this bigger point about how Sudan is what the end of the liberal world order looks like. So let's talk about that in the macro and then, and then we'll get down to the details of the conflict.

Tim Miller (29:02)

You know, this is a subject I've written About. In other places. And at other, you know, you can write about it in the context of Russian, European, Ukraine and other. Other. Other places, of Israel actually, in Gaza as well. But, you know, in Sudan, it's particularly dramatic. So in Sudan, you have a place where the state has effectively disappeared. There's a civil war. They're basically parts of what used to be. The Sudanese military are fighting each other. And there, There's a long history to that, but. Which I can explain if you want. But, but the. But the state has disintegrated. And all around Sudan, there are these outside powers who have an interest in how this war goes or making money out of it or sell. And that includes an amazing array of states. I mean, so the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Qataris, the Turks, the Egyptians, the Russians are there. The Russians are there on both sides of the war. The Iranians are there. There's some Islamic groups that they support. Actually, the Ukrainians are there. And that is, to me, almost one of the most interesting pieces of the story. Because, of course, they don't care. They're not supporting either side or helping either side. They're there to find and kill Russians. And that tells you.

Anne Applebaum (30:09)

That was like the most interesting side in the story. When I got to that, I had to pause, had to rewind. I was like, wait, what? Yeah, the Ukrainians are just going after the Russian militants, I guess.

Tim Miller (30:20)

Yeah. Because the Wagner group, remember this kind of Russian mercenaries, they were fighting on one side. Now they appear to be helping the other side as well. So that's another piece of the story. So you have all these groups who have an interest in prolonging the war or helping one side, or a lot of them are interested in gold. There's a lot of gold in Sudan. Some are interested in other resources. Saudis have land investments in Sudan. And so what you have is a kind of. You can't even really call it a proxy war. I mean, it's an anarchic free for all. And some of it uses. There are old ethnic conflicts and old lines of conflict in Sudan that have been there for many years. But now they're amplified and juiced up by all these outside powers, by drones, which are cheap and widely available, and by other kinds of weaponry that is much more lethal than what was available even 10 or 15 years ago. And so you have that situation, and then what you don't have is any outsiders, any framework, any UN Negotiators, any, you know, appointment from there is theoretically, technically, actually, there is somebody who's appointed by the Secretary General of the UN to be a negotiator there, but he's almost never there and he's a ghostly figure. And what you also don't have is Americans. You know, we had a little bit during the Biden administration, towards the end, the last couple of years, they had an envoy there. But it's actually been a decline over a decade of American interests, kind of both diplomatic interest and other kinds of interest in Sudan, humanitarian interest. I mean, there was a moment, and I remember this actually rather well, when Darfur was a big cause in the United States and the Janjaweed, who've now evolved in something called the Rapid Support Forces, who are one of the halves of the civil war, people understood that they were trying to commit genocide in Darfur. And actually American evangelicals were very interested in Sudan because the southern part of the. The country is Christian. It's now broken off. It's now a separate state. And the United States was actually part of that process, negotiating that and so on. And I'm not going to say that U.S. efforts were always amazingly successful. I mean, obviously they weren't, or the war wouldn't have started again. But there was US Interest and engagement. And now, of course, there's nothing. And so the UN Is gone, Europeans have cut back. The US Is invisible. And so what you have instead is these middle powers who have financial or transactional interests. And so you have no. By liberal world order, I mean the UN Charter. You know, the idea that there is, you know, countries, borders have some meaning, that there are rules of engagement in international conflict. All that, that's all gone. None of it's visible there at all. And what you have is a kind of chaos and, you know, a war that. One of the reasons why I think we find it hard to understand the war is because it doesn't seem to be. It's not like there's a good guys and bad guys or, you know, one side is for, you know, left wing and right wing.

Anne Applebaum (33:15)

So could you just explain the sides? Because it is a little. It's pretty murky.

Tim Miller (33:19)

It's murky because essentially there's more than one. More than two sides, rather. But there are two main groups, and one of them is the Sudanese Armed Forces. And this is a. You know, this has been effectively, the Sudanese armed forces has been running the country for many decades in different formats. And then the other group is the Rapid Support Forces, who were affiliated to the Sudanese regime and were actually created by their previous dictator. And they're the thing that Used to be called, called the Janjaweed. And they were a group of, originally based on nomadic Arab tribes who, who fought with and tried to ethnically cleanse the, the sort of farmers, the so called African farmers who, who spoke different language, non, non Arabic languages in western Sudan and Darfur. And they were at one point together and now they're, they're fighting one another.

Anne Applebaum (34:07)

But so there's no ethnic. That's what I was trying to get like, is there an ethnic difference between those, those two groups?

Tim Miller (34:14)

There are, but it's not just about that. I mean, it is sort of people from the western part of the country against people from the eastern part of the country very roughly. But a lot of the fight is about control over gold or control over territory or, you know, who should be in charge of this region or that region. It's not a war where there is a kind of clear ideology or even clear ethnic division decisions. It's really just about power and control. And I think that makes it hard to understand and hard to feel sympathetic with anybody. And it also is part of the explanation for why it's so destructive. I mean, you have mercenaries fighting and actually more mercenaries are fighting on the RSF side. And the mercenaries seem to be, are often unpaid and they seem to have been told by their commanders, you can steal whatever you want and that's your payment. And so you have this kind of massive theft also going on during the war and people being robbed. And Khartoum, which had a, you know, there was a middle class part of Khartoum. I stayed in a kind of middle class suburb of Khartoum. When I was there, you had people living middle class lives or people had some wealth accumulated. There were places where we saw kind of piles of washing machines that had been stolen out of people's houses and were, you know, the RSF didn't have time to take them away when they retreated from the city. So there's an enormous amount of, of theft as well. I mean, on both sides there are kind of underlying conflicts. There are ethnic groups in western part of the country that have always been neglected and so on. But it's really that if you look at the, you know, I asked a lot of people, you know, are the, are the leaders of either side concerned about civilians? You know, do they care about this immense civilian suffering? You know, 14 million people displaced, something like half the population will go hungry at some point this year. Most children are out of school. Do they care about that? And several people said to me, no, we don't Think they care. And then as I said, fueled by these middle sized powers, the war continues and it's simply nihilistic and destructive and the US is nowhere to be seen and the UN is nowhere to be seen. But the other thing worth saying is that the Sudanese themselves continue to ask about the. I mean, I think, why was I there? Why did they let me in? I think partly because they want Americans there. I mean, they had this idea that you couldn't tell, you know, we can get America interested if we, if we give you. People said that to me and you know, they would, people would ask about why was America gone. And this is even before we've got to the question of aid. This is just about diplomacy, you know, and so there's a, maybe it's not even realistic, or maybe it's based on, you know, some kind of false memory of what Americans used. But there's an idea that Americans used to be able to come in and negotiate and have enough power to get people to sit down together. And that doesn't exist anymore.

Anne Applebaum (37:05)

There are a lot there. Just on the US side, there's part of me that says, okay, well, obviously I agree with this premise about just how brutish life is without a liberal world order. On the other hand, this has been happening in Sudan for a quarter century back, even when the US was doing more. And so I do wonder what, what is it like? Appreciably worse, like the US's absence is notable. You gave one example that was pretty heart wrenching about a doctor who talking about how he wasn't wasting food because he'd heard rumors that whatever Trump and Elon Musk were worried about waste, which is pretty sad. So I guess I just wonder on both points, was it meaningfully different when there was more of a, whatever international Western order there and what has changed?

Tim Miller (37:54)

Some people who've read the piece have had the same comment. I mean, so there have been moments when US intervention helped. We did help end a previous civil war, this kind of north, south civil war. We did help create South Sudan, which hasn't been a huge success, but it was a way of ending that conflict. So we have had we and we. I don't mean just the United States, I mean US and others and the UN and others separately. And I haven't talked about this yet. I mean, US aid to Sudan, so provision of food, this is not democracy promotion. This is not any, you know, any, anything beyond provision of food and humanitarian aid has been hugely important. Not just into Sudan, but also the helping Sudanese Refugees who. Who are all over the region. And that was something that. That we have been doing for a long time, and that did matter. And the absence of that is already noticeable. And so one of the things to remember about USAID is USAID was about just humanitarian aid. I should say was about 40% of the world's humanitarian aid, but it was a lot of even more, maybe 90% of the logistics. So all kinds of things like trucking contracts and statistics and payment systems. A lot of that was run by usaid. And remember how USAID was ended? It was ended from one day to the next. People were thrown out of their offices. They were told they couldn't have access to their email. They didn't have access to the payments systems. They couldn't reach the people they were supposed to be in touch with in Egypt or wherever. And I talked to people who had had that experience. So this very abrupt, disastrous, kind of catastrophic way that it ended without any form of handoff meant that all over, you know, all over the world, actually, but certainly all over Sudan, there were these very abrupt shifts and disasters. You know, so there's one part of Sudan where refugees are coming over the border because there's been a. There's a battle in a city called Al Fasher, and they're coming over the border. And when they cross the border into Chad, they find almost literally nothing. Like there's supposed to be UNHCR there. That's the refugee organization. But they don't have enough trucks, they don't have food, they don't have people, you know, and the people who are there are about to lose their jobs because their contracts end, you know, in this month or next month. That's directly because of the. Of the US cuts, Even though I think technically UNHCR wasn't supposed to be. I don't think people who worked there thought of themselves as being dependent on usaid. But the way the system worked, the US Was so important and so central that the whole thing falls apart. And, yes, I talk about the doctor who had a hospital full of malnourished children. And these are very tiny babies who are extremely weak and their mothers who are very weak, and in order to. They can be saved, and you can save them with these nutritional supplements, some of which are made in the US and the doctor I met there, this very young, articulate doctor who said, was explaining to me, we are really careful about how we use it, and we don't waste it, and we only give it to. And I thought, oh, my God, you know, this is a man who deals with starving children every day, and he feels like he has to talk about not wasting food. I mean, it was. For me, it was very embarrassing. I mean, I think I talked about this on your show once before. There were other things, too. There's a. One of the really positive things about Sudan, if you want me to say something uplifting, is that one of the things you do see is a lot of the Sudanese have begun to organize themselves. There's a movement called the Emergency Response Movement, and they create these soup kitchens that then raise money and help feed people. And so when everything disappeared, when the whole infrastructure fell apart and the government disappears, and there's no international groups there, what you do still find, or these local organizations, but some of them, even some of them were getting their food from sources that, unbeknownst to them, turned out to have some USAID funding. And so, you know, we would go to a soup kitchen and they would say, well, we used to give people food five days a week, and now it's down to three days a week because we don't have enough. I mean, literally, they're giving them bean soup. And so we're talking about pennies, you know, a few dollars. You know, that's what. What is. What does a handful of beans cost that they aren't able to get because of these cuts? And the kind of criminal carelessness of it really comes home to you there. I mean, it wasn't like they said, okay, this is too big an institution and we're going to reform it and fix it. No, they had to destroy it or put it in the wood chipper or whatever it was that Musk said he was doing and take its name off the building and make everybody go home. I mean, some of it is still supposedly functioning, and some of the people I talk to still think have their jobs for the moment. But the repercussions of that carelessness will be felt for a long time, and as I said, in really one of the poorest places in the world, and that also the Sudanese find just inexplicable. Nobody understands why. I mean, what do I say? I can't explain it to them.

Anne Applebaum (42:54)

Well, we've got. The vice president had to go on a rafting trip and boat trip in Ohio, and we had to raise. Raise the river because it was a little too low. So we had to make sure the water in the river was higher. And we spent 50 million on Trump's golf trips. So priorities are pretty important. Those folks you're talking to, I Just really quick, want to have you share some of those stories. And you're in Khartoum. I can't imagine how you have will to go on if you're in Khartoum. I mean, your point about the US it's sort of this adding insult to injury, right? It's like nobody cares about us. Both sides of this conflict don't care about us. It's kind of a conflict about nothing, really. I mean, except power and money. And then, you know, the folks that were doing this minimal amount to help make sure we didn't starve, they don't care about us anymore. And you're talking about how you're there and, you know, there's life happening, you know, regular life in Khartoum happening, but then you go to another. You know, there's a bombing in another part of town, you know, and, you know, they're. They're pulling dead people out of whatever buildings. And, you know, the folks who you're able to talk to, like, how do they go on, I guess is my question.

Tim Miller (44:04)

So there you meet amazingly idealistic people or people who say, you know, this is my country. I will help as long as I can. There are still people. I mean, it's funny, I mean, without having read, I don't know, James Madison or John Locke. I mean, you still hear people say, I can imagine a different future for this country. You know, I can imagine, you know, some. A system of power sharing, you know, where we weren't fighting, you know, or don't even need to use the word democracy, but some more peaceful way of doing things. You know, I can imagine the rule of law. And there are people who still think it's worth trying to build that. And there have been moments in the past, even in the past few years, where it felt like they were getting closer to something better, and they stay there. I mean, the. Obviously, some people leave. People who can. Of course, the other thing is that some people can't leave. I mean, they just don't have the money to leave, or they don't have anywhere to go, or they have family members to take care of. But it's always been amazing to me, and this is true in lots of other places I've been, too, how human beings can still be inspired by the idea that they can make their country better, or they can do something better, or they can imagine something that's more just and more fair and they're willing to try to build it. And I have met people in the Russian opposition. I've met people in The Iranian opposition. I've met these Sudanese who are on the ground. And even in places that seem completely hopeless, you find that people are willing to do that. And that continues to be, for me, it's a kind of miracle that I keep. Keep uncovering in different parts of it. I'm not going to say everyone does that, and there are plenty of people who are selfish, as I say, but there are always a core of people who are willing to keep trying.

Anne Applebaum (45:56)

Well, the story is really striking. Folks should go read it in the Atlantic because there's a lot of other details in there. I guess I should also say this is not Sudan, it's South Sudan. The country said we sort of helped cleave off. But the one amount of policy that the US is engaging in right now with Sudan is we did send some migrants who were not from South Sudan to South Sudan as part of some deal where they want the. The one of the leaders, I guess, to, you know, get off the sanctions list. So, like, this is what we're doing now. Like, rather than providing the plumpy nuts or whatever, we're like sending migrants from other places to the region.

Tim Miller (46:34)

That was a horrifying story that, you know, they, they now figure only as some kind of useful place where they have a prison that we can borrow. I mean, that's it.

Anne Applebaum (46:48)

It's just crazy. Okay, last thing. And I think unintentionally, actually, we have a little Ann Applebaum book club happening, because in the last two times you're on, one time you met Wrench, the Captive Mind, which is a book, Polish book, about the mindset of autocracy and fascism and how it warps people's minds and behavior. And then you mentioned the Oppermanns, which is a fiction book about Nazi Germany and kind of a Jewish family living in Nazi Germany. It's like, it was astounding. I read that on vacation. I did Oppermans and then I did Gay Romance. I got a little bit of both when I was on vacation this summer. But. So do you have a third book? Do you have a third book you could recommend for us? I've now done two.

Tim Miller (47:33)

I just read a great novel, actually, fairly new novel called the Director, and it's about a Nazi film director who goes to. It's based on a true story who goes to Hollywood, fails and goes back to. Sorry, he wasn't a Nazi. He was a German anti Nazi film director. He goes to Hollywood, then he fails and he comes back to Nazi Germany. And it's about what that's like, it's very good. It's by a German writer called Daniel Kellerman. It's been translated in the last year.

Anne Applebaum (48:02)

I'll check that out. That also is relevant. We definitely have some failed people in our administration who have decided to go maga who were not maga before the vice president, for example, but many more all the way down.

Tim Miller (48:14)

That is actually the subject of it. I mean, it's different context and so on, but it's very good. It's about how do you readjust?

Anne Applebaum (48:20)

Anna Applebaum, I appreciate you so much. It's a wonderful story and appreciate the work that you're doing, traveling over there and keeping us informed. And we'll have you back again soon, I hope.

Tim Miller (48:29)

Thank you.

Anne Applebaum (48:30)

Everybody else, see you back here tomorrow for another edition of the Bulwark Podcast. Peace.

C (48:36)

I just gotta warm up on my plants and hoping that they'll thrive around the madness Won't you step inside My lovely cottage feels so green it feels like magic only bad in my trellis. Baby, I'm the baddest wake me up when this gets to the action when the place a mess I get the madness. I'm so sorry baby, it's a habit when you go away I get the saddest Lately I'm hard to manage Rest with me on Sabbath you don't need those women they are average Fruits and juices all that you desire. Did you water from the island? You can be yourself for me I'm a home maker I know that I've been gone. Please don't fall for this mode.

Anne Applebaum (49:56)

My.

C (49:56)

Mood'S been real sloppy I cry when I'm old All these people don't know that I deal with all of these doubts wild Then all I do is cry out pain Even when the sun it just feels like rain. You're the only one who embrace the change.

Anne Applebaum (51:02)

The board podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.