Ukraine and America’s Credibility Crisis — with Anne Applebaum

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway

Episode: Ukraine and America’s Credibility Crisis — with Anne Applebaum
Date: December 4, 2025
Guest: Anne Applebaum (Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, staff writer at The Atlantic)

---

Episode Overview

This episode features Scott Galloway in conversation with Anne Applebaum. Together, they examine the current state of the war in Ukraine, the controversial U.S.-Russia "peace plan" negotiations, America’s mounting credibility crisis on the world stage, and the creeping dangers of kleptocracy and corruption seeping into U.S. governance. The discussion also explores shifting power dynamics in Europe, Russia’s internal realities, and how the war is accelerating larger historical trends.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. The State of Play: U.S.-Russia “Peace” Negotiations

(08:34–11:54)

• Background on Negotiations:
  Recent backchannel talks have involved U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump family associates, and Russian state figures like Kirill Dmitriev (head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund).
• Primary Interests:
  These talks seem driven less by urgent interest in ending the war or ensuring Ukraine’s sovereignty than by “the creation of a possible new set of American and Russian business deals,” including mineral exploration and oil/gas projects.
• Corrupt Undertones:
  Applebaum finds this arrangement unprecedented: “I can't find an exact precedent in American history before where something this high stakes ... was being conducted by essentially business people whose main interest was business deals.” (10:56)

2. America’s Corruption and International Credibility

(11:54–20:45)

• Correlation with Recent U.S. Actions:
  Applebaum and Galloway agree that U.S. foreign policy (and even legal processes like presidential pardons) appear increasingly for sale.
• Global Perception:
  Europeans, according to Applebaum, are “shocked and surprised that even at this level, that it would be that corrupt.” (12:27)
• Decline of Accountability:
  Anne notes, “I don't know of an exact historical parallel … when you have this kind of corruption ... it results in some kind of collapse or disaster or war, and it’s after the collapse ... that you have the moment of reckoning.” (15:40)
• Contrast to Ukraine:
  Ukraine, despite being at war, is actively investigating internal corruption, with popular support for anti-corruption efforts. Applebaum asks if Americans could even imagine similar oversight now.

3. The “Capitulation” Peace Plan

(24:17–31:08)

• What’s at Stake:
  The proposed peace plan involves U.S. recognition of broad Russian occupation of Ukrainian territories—including some still held by Ukraine—and barring Ukraine from NATO membership “ever.”
• Ukrainian Perspective:
  The plan is unacceptable to Kyiv and the broader Ukrainian public; it’s seen as a forced surrender, not a genuine settlement.
• Political Impossibility:
  “President Zelenskyy could not stay in office and just turn over this piece of land.” (26:12)
• Comparison to Korea:
  Real, lasting peace would require strong guarantees and continued Western support, as in South Korea—not the abandonment suggested by this plan.

4. Europe’s Response and Shifting Alliances

(31:08–39:35)

• Europe Steps Up:
  With U.S. backing waning, European countries (especially those close to Ukraine) have intensified military and economic support, with nations like Denmark, Norway, and Germany undergoing real transformations.
• Strategic Awakening:
  Applebaum describes a “big change in Europe and European strategic thinking ... and the big realization that Europe has made a huge mistake in allowing the U.S. to dominate new technology.” (35:54–38:39)
• Decoupling from the U.S.:
  The dynamic many Americans miss: “The U.S. is not going to be able to dictate what happens in Ukraine ... they certainly won’t be able to dictate a bad solution.” (39:35)

5. The Rise of Kleptocracy and Lawlessness

(44:11–48:49)

• Kleptocracy Tracker:
  Applebaum tracks a mounting list of regulatory rollbacks and pardon-for-donation scandals, warning of an atmosphere where “you can do all these things with impunity.”
• American Complacency:
  “We're so used to our system running on autopilot ... and once the critical mass is reached and that's no longer true, then it's going to be very hard to fix.” (48:05)

6. Impact on American Politics and the Midterms

(48:49–50:45)

• Potential Fallout:
  Sustained war and failed “peace” negotiations sold as grifts could negatively affect U.S. public perception, especially if Americans see national interest repeatedly sacrificed to enrich those close to power.

7. Business-First Diplomacy: The Dangers of Oligarchy

(50:45–54:57)

• Modeling After Russia:
  “That is literally the Russian system … where all of government and all of foreign policy is really just designed to benefit this kind of ownership class.” (51:42–52:21)
• Worldwide Trends:
  Applebaum’s recent book, Autocracy Inc., explores how autocracies blur the lines between politics and business, and she argues the U.S. is now “pushing in that direction.”

8. Winners and Losers in a Changing Europe

(54:57–59:31)

• Europe’s New Power Centers:
  Applebaum sees countries like Poland as rising powers due to their support for Ukraine, while the UK faces economic headwinds from Brexit.
• Strategic Realignment:
  Alliances are shifting; “We need to have much stronger country-to-country links that don't depend on some assumption of permanent American presence in Europe.” (57:30)

9. Inside Russia: Mindset and Resilience

(59:31–62:31)

• No Real Public Opinion:
  “It’s genuinely impossible to measure something called public opinion in Russia, because this is a country in which to be against the war is illegal.” (60:11)
• Russian Endurance:
  Russians may be “exhausted” but the state is willing to endure immense losses; this is a core national trait and a strategic asset.

10. Ukraine’s Innovation and the War Economy

(62:31–66:37)

• Shifting Ukrainian Strategy:
  Ukraine’s new focus is on targeting Russian economic infrastructure with drones, not just military targets.
  “They’re now so far ahead of everybody else ... everybody’s going there to learn how they’re doing it, including Americans.” (66:02–66:37)

11. “Where Would You Live?”: Young Professionals and Opportunity

(65:28–67:05)

• Applebaum would advise a young professional to explore Poland or even Ukraine’s drone industry, rather than Russia.
• She fondly regards London as “still the greatest city in the world.” (67:02)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I can't find an exact precedent in American history before where something this high stakes ... was being conducted by essentially business people whose main interest was business deals.”
  — Anne Applebaum (10:56)

• “Ukraine, even now, is investigating corruption. Can you imagine that here?”
  — Anne Applebaum (18:25)

• “The world online is a pretty small world. ... I used to get upset ... on Twitter. When I logged off ... it just didn’t matter.”
  — Scott Galloway (05:34)

• “The plan is essentially asking Ukraine to give away territory Russia couldn’t capture in battle—and somehow that’s peace?”
  — Anne Applebaum (26:03)

• “We are really very much at risk of government for the ownership class ... It’s a kind of state where political power and economic power are the same thing.”
  — Anne Applebaum (53:02, condensed)

• “Wars don’t change history, they accelerate it.”
  — Scott Galloway (54:57)

• “The country where I see the most innovation ... is there [Ukraine].”
  — Anne Applebaum (66:02)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 08:34 — U.S.-Russia negotiation background and business motives
• 12:09 — Global view of American corruption & credibility
• 15:40 — Is there any historical parallel for this situation?
• 18:19 — Contrast: Ukraine fights corruption as part of national identity
• 24:36 — What’s actually in the “peace”/capitulation plan?
• 31:08 — State of public support in Ukraine and Europe
• 35:54 — Europe’s transformation, new defense and tech thinking
• 39:35 — Has the U.S. completely lost leverage in Ukraine?
• 44:21 — The Kleptocracy Tracker and risks for U.S. norms
• 50:45 — Diplomacy replaced by private capital networks
• 54:57 — Historical acceleration: who are Europe’s winners and losers?
• 59:45 — Russia’s opaque internal mindset
• 62:31 — Ukrainian strategy: target Russian infrastructure and economy
• 65:28 — Where should a young professional with mobility live/work?
• 67:05 — Closing thoughts on Ukraine’s postwar potential

---

Conclusion

In a far-reaching conversation, Scott Galloway and Anne Applebaum dissect the unprecedented melding of private interests and official diplomacy in current U.S.-Russia-Ukraine dealings, explore how European powers are recalibrating in response, and warn of the corrosive creep of kleptocracy. Applebaum highlights Ukraine’s innovation and resilience, describes Europe’s awakening, and offers sharp perspective on how quickly institutions can be eroded—and how hard it is to fight back once complacency sets in. The episode is a sober, sometimes alarming, but ultimately insightful look at how global credibility and collective resistance are shaped in real time.

---

Transcript

[A]

Support for the show comes from Neiman Marcus. If you're struggling to think of a truly unique gift for the holidays, then check out Neiman Marcus. It's your home for the most exceptional gifts this season. From the ultimate stocking stuffers to statement bags made for celebration to their legendary fantasy gifts that surpass every expectation, Neiman Marcus has something extraordinary for everyone. And with style advisors to guide you, finding the perfect gift at every price point is effortless. So head to Neiman Marcus for a truly unforgettable holiday.

Support for today's show comes from Northwest Registered Agent. Starting a business is hard. No surprise there. But Northwest Registered Agent is here to help you out. They've been helping small business owners and entrepreneurs launch and grow businesses for nearly 30 years and they give you access to thousands of free resources, forms and step by step guides without even creating an account. Don't wait, protect your privacy, build your brand and get your complete business identity in just 10 clicks and 10 minutes. Visit northwestregisteredagent.com Prof. G free and start building something amazing. Get more with Northwest registered [e-mail] Prof. G Free.

[B]

Support for this show comes from Strawberry Me. Be honest, are you happy with your job or are you stuck in one you've outgrown or never wanted in the first place? Sure, you can probably list the reasons for staying, but are they actually just excuses for not leaving? Let a career coach from Strawberry Me help you get unstuck. Discover the benefits of having a dedicated career coach in your corner. Go to Strawberry Me Unstuck to claim a special offer.

[A]

Episode 375375 is the country code for Belarus. In 1975, Jaws premiered. I like to watch Jaws backwards as it becomes a heartwarming story of a shark that helps disabled people put their lives back together.

[B]

Go go go.

[A]

Welcome to the 375th episode of the Prop Jeep Pod. So I'm very self conscious about my dirty jokes now. We had a guest who is a wonderful guest, a very high profile guest who does really well on the podcast. Basically say he can't come on again because he was so like rattled, offended, I don't know what the word was. He didn't speak. He spoke to the team about some of my profanity at the beginning of the episode. Which is fair because it doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, but he doesn't need to be on a program where he feels like he's being strafed by a certain I don't know, approach that he's not up for. So I totally respect that. And it got me thinking about profanity and vulgarity and the role it plays in our programming. And I've been. What have I been doing? I've been mostly recovering, recovering, dealing with the critique of my book, Notes on Being a Man, available on Amazon, so came out at number one on the New York Times bestseller list. I've never gone above number five, which is mostly a function of the fact that one, the conversation is getting a lot of attention right now around the role of men, the masculinity crisis, et cetera. And also, I have been just a total media whore. I've been going on TV and different podcasts for the better part of 10 years. I'm generally a likable guy. I try to help other people out. So when I had this book come out and people heard about it, everybody invited me on everywhere. And my publicists are not worried about me or the publicists for the book are not worried about me being overexposed. And I've actually canceled a bunch of stuff this week because I feel like it's enough Scott already. I feel like I'm AOL in the 90s, where if you stick your hand in a cereal box, you're going to pull out some Scott. And there's been some really interesting feedback. The most valid feedback, because it hurts so I know it's right, is that I'm too focused on reverse engineering my success to advice that is unilaterally beneficial for all young men, recognizing that it may not work for them specifically. Economic security solved a lot of my problems, a lot of my anxiety. So a lot of my counseling to young men is how to become more economically viable. And two, that they need to get a relationship that if you have money and a relationship, that you will be okay. And that that's not true for everybody. And some men aren't going to have access to either of those things. I think that's a fair criticism. But some of these immediate. Just this gag reflex of.

You know, men, we're not interested in helping you. And it's always part of the patriarchy. And it's women's fault. No, it's not women's fault. And that's not what we're saying. But that's not the point of this. The point of this is that I wasted my fucking weekend thinking about all this bullshit online. And it is. Kept me glued to my phone, went extremely online. You'd think at my age and knowing as much as I do about the algorithms of big tech and how it is their job just to keep me online so they can sell me more ZipRecruiter ads or get me to, I don't know, target me with the right ads at the right time that you think I'd be somewhat smarter and wouldn't just go down these rabbit holes and get all bummed out. And I'm still not. I think we're up against just this godlike technology with.

Medieval institutions regulating them and paleolithic instincts driving us. And what's the message here? The message is that you really do need to take stock of your own screen time. We have these apps that keep our 15 year old who I think does suffer from a certain level of screen addiction, which supposedly affects one in four kids, to keep or to limit its use. And I feel as if I need to start limiting my own use because I end up going down these rabbit holes and getting upset and seeing all this shit that I think misrepresents my work and getting very disappointed or angry. The thing I think we all need to do, especially young men, but all of us is say, okay, recognize a couple things. One, the world online is a pretty small world. And that is I used to get upset, are excited about what was being said about me and about topics I cared about on Twitter. And then when I logged off of Twitter, when it kind of turned into a Nazi porn bar, I found that it just didn't matter. It didn't impact me professionally, financially, and it was impacted me positively, emotionally and psychologically. And you realize how just fucking small the world of Twitter is. It's like 1% of Twitter users are driving 90% of the content. And then I would say probably a third to two thirds of the content is being driven by bots that just have. Are just part of troll farms. So one, this is not the real world. This is a part of the world. But what your friends think of you, what strangers think of you, what the majority of people who think of you who are not on TikTok or Threads or Instagram all day long. It's just not. It's meaningful, but it's not profound. And the thing that is most disappointing to me about myself is that I oftentimes let the bullshit or the views of strangers impact my time and my presence and my wellbeing around other people. I don't know how I got here. I don't know how I got here. Anyways, what's going on in today's episode? You might be asking. Well, I'll Tell you. In today's episode, we speak with Anne Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian and staff writer at the Atlantic. I love Anne Applebaum, and I not only love how incredibly smart and measured and thoughtful she is. Jesus Christ, make her Secretary of fucking State. Anyway, one of the things I love about social media is it brings attention to people who are just so outstanding that their content resonates for the moment. And this is how I found Ann Applebaum. I think this is going to be her second or third time on the show. Anyways, I'm just an enormous fan of Anne's. So with that, here's our conversation with Anne Applebaum.

And you are one of our favorite guests. I think this might be the third time. Where does this podcast find you?

[B]

I'm in the offices of the Atlantic Monthly magazine in Washington, D.C. which is a rare occasion, actually.

[A]

The Atlantic Monthly in Washington, dc. Wow. All right, let's bust right into it. We're recording this in the middle of what the New York Times called a week of hasty diplomacy around the war in Ukraine. Leaked peace plans, private negotiations, and a swirl of business dealings. Putin is set to meet with US Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. And as we speak, no peace agreement has been accepted or signed and give us the current state of play. What's actually happening on the ground and in these negotiations.

[B]

So the negotiations are a somewhat strange product of a series of conversations that Steve Witkoff and maybe others have been having with a guy called Kirill Dmitriev, who's the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund over the last several weeks and months, actually. And remembering that neither Steve Witkoff nor Kirill Dmitriev has as their main goal the conclusion of the war and the preservation of the sovereignty of Ukraine and the defense of Europe and a secure future for Europe and for Ukraine. They seem to have as their main goal the creation of a possible new set of American and Russian business deals. And we know this both because of reporting, really quite amazing reporting in the Wall Street Journal as well as a few months ago in the Financial Times. We know this because the original version of a peace deal that presented had a whole long list of plans, American Russian plans, including looking for minerals in the Arctic and oil and gas infrastructure, and maybe the use of some frozen Russian assets that are in European banks by Americans to develop Russia. So that seems to be their primary interest. And they came up with this 28 point peace plan that was completely unacceptable either to the Ukrainians or to the Europeans. It was somehow then modified. Secretary Rubio Got involved. Modified change. There's another version of it which we haven't seen yet, that Steve Witkoff is supposedly taking to Moscow. I mean, really, as we're speaking, as we're having this conversation, he's there. What's disturbing about this episode is that it shows something very ugly about this administration, namely, and it raises a question, in whose name are they conducting American foreign policy? Is this for the security and prosperity of America and our allies, or is this something that's happening on behalf of companies, maybe even some involving the family of Trump or of Witkoff, who are hoping to make money out of this negotiation? That's where we are right now. Now. And I think it's. I've talked to a lot of people, I can't find an exact precedent in American history before where something this high stakes and at this high level and involving the security of so many millions of people and so many other countries was being conducted by essentially business people whose main interest was business deals.

[A]

Isn't this a continuing pattern? We've monetized access to the White House. We've monetized the pardon system. I mean, isn't this a continuation of the core brand association thus far? And that is one of grift.

[B]

Yes, I mean, I suppose the shock for the outside world. And as you know, I live part of the time in Europe. I have a Polish husband who's involved in all this stuff as well. He's a Polish diplomat? Well, no, he's the Polish foreign minister. And I'm continually hearing from, not just polls, but from British friends, from German friends. I'm continually hearing this kind of shock and surprise that even this. I mean, I guess everybody got used to the idea that American politics are corrupt or there are elements of corruption in our system, but that even at this level, that it would be that corrupt remains surprising to other people. Maybe it's not really surprising to us anymore. But, yeah, I think you're, you know, it is an extension of other decisions. I mean, we're talking in a week when, at the same time, speaking of foreign policy, Trump is also working himself up, or maybe members of his administration are working themselves up to have some kind of conflict with Venezuela on the grounds that it's a narco terrorist state. And at the meantime, exactly in the same week, they've pardoned a former president of Honduras who was in jail on cocaine charges, apparently, because maybe he has business dealings with some people who are around Trump or close to Trump. So it's a, you know, it looks more and more like the main motivations for everything, you're right, not just foreign policy, are to do with the business interests of people in the entourage.

[A]

Well, just along those lines, I'm curious, you validate or nullify the thesis. I think with somewhere between if my son had committed a crime and was in prison, I think with somewhere between three and ten million dollars, with my connections, I could figure out a way to get to the White House, communicate. I'm going to make a seven or eight figure donation to the East Wing renovation and get my son out of prison. I legitimately think I could accomplish that right now. Your thoughts?

[B]

I would be amazed if you couldn't do it. I don't even know if you need special connections. I mean, you need to make a donation to the East Wing or you need to buy into the President's cryptocurrency fund. I mean, there are lots of ways to do it. And you can buy into the cryptocurrency fund anonymously. You can do it as an anonymous shell company. And so actually, nobody would have to know except the people who run that fund, which by the way, includes Zach Witkoff, who's Steve Witkoff's son. I'm not even sure you have to be an insider. I don't know if you have to be a MAGA Republican. I don't think anything ideological is required. I think it's really just money.

[A]

Before we talk about the piece you wrote for the Atlantic around the peace plan.

I'm curious. Let's assume, all right, we get to some sense of normalcy in your view. Give us a historical context for whether, if you do believe that in fact, real egregious crimes have been committed here. Up and down the stack, from the Secretary of War, maybe a war crime, to outright grift and.

Corruption that makes us less safe overseas that will take decades to repair. Historically, when a democracy like ours faces this type of corruption, or if you believe that this in fact has been wrongdoing, how does a democracy best move past it? Is it to forgive it and move on, or is it to have something resembling some sort of tribunal?

[B]

I am not sure because I don't know of an exact historical parallel to what we are living through. Very often when you have this kind of corruption, takeover system, it results in some kind of collapse or disaster or war. And it's usually after the collapse or disaster or war that you have the moment of reckoning when people say, that was too much. We need to change our system. We need to change our Constitution. We need bigger, deeper changes to prevent this from happening again. And of course, I don't wish something like that to happen. And so I'm not, you know, but in the absence of it happening, I don't know how you reach enough people, how you shake the foundation of politics. I've just been. I've just started to read Jill Lepore's new book, which is. It's about the American Constitution. And one of the points she makes is that often our Constitution has been amended, at least in the most serious ways after a war. So firstly after the Revolution and then after the Civil War, that's when we got the. The amendments that allowed black people to vote and change the nature of American citizenship. Then after World War I, there were a number of important amendments, women's suffrage being one of them. And it's almost as if you need some big moment of change to convince people that the foundations of the system.

Are rotten. And I don't right now see how we get to that. And the scenarios that would lead us to that aren't good. And so I don't wish for them. I mean, one would really have to have a. The only other alternative I can think of is that there needs to be just a lot more awareness among ordinary people of how, you know, how bad it's gotten. You know, I know that a lot of. For a lot of Americans, this doesn't feel like something new. A lot of Americans, partly because of the way they've been reading and thinking and learning about politics in the last several years, think that Washington is corrupt anyway, and everything has always been corrupt. And this is exactly, you know, it's just an extension of past corruption and explaining to them that this is something qualitatively different, that this is a different kind of behavior, that American foreign policy has never been for sale at this level with these kinds of stakes before. I think, you know, the best I can do is write about it and talk about it, and I know you're doing that, too, in order to convince enough people.

To take this moment seriously and have it change their behavior, make them vote, make them get involved in politics, make them participate, because it's really. Without that, it's really hard to see how you change. I mean, an interesting comparison. I haven't written this yet, although I hope to do it in the next few days. I talked this morning to a senior figure who's involved in a corruption investigation inside you. Ukraine. Maybe you've heard that there's a. The Ukrainian state is investigating itself, which is actually, at this point in history, hard to Imagine in the United States, there's an anti corruption bureau inside the government and they are investigating people, some of whom are very close to the president, for a kind of kickback scheme to do with the energy industry. The details aren't that important. What matters is that it's the Ukrainian state that's doing it. It's as if our FBI was investigating our president, which right now is hard to imagine. You can't imagine that happening. And I asked the investigator, how is it that you have the legitimacy to do this? How do you have the support to do it? And he said, look, it comes from Ukrainians. There was a moment last summer when some people in the presidential administration tried to shut down this investigation and there were popular protests. Ukrainians understand that this is an important part of their democracy. They want corruption ended. They think it's important not just, not just for moral reasons, but because corruption weakens them and makes them more susceptible to Russian bribery and blackmail and so on. And so this is a state body that's acting with the support of Ukrainians. And I don't know that we have the equivalent movement here. Could you imagine big national protests if. Well, I mean, you can't imagine it because it's already happened. I mean, if the president were to replace the heads of the FBI and the Department of Justice with flunkies who would never investigate him, what would happen? I mean, we know what would happen. Nothing would happen because that's what took place early this year. And I just think Americans have lost the. Their, you know, the ability to be shocked or the ability to absorb the ways in which this is different. And so, as I say, all I can think of to do right now is to explain it to people as much as possible.

[A]

We'll be right back after a quick break.

Support for the show comes from Avanta. Startups move fast, and with AI, they're shipping even faster and attracting enterprise buyers sooner. But big deals bring even bigger security and compliance requirements. A SOC 2 isn't always enough. The right kind of security can make a deal or break it. But most founders and engineers can't afford to take time away from building their company to work. Focus on that. That's where Vanta comes in. Vanta's AI and automation make it easy for your company to get big deal ready in days. And Vanta says they continuously monitor your compliance, so future deals are never blocked. Plus, Vanta scales with you backed by support. That's there when you need it every step of the way. With AI changing regulations and buyer's expectations. Vanta knows what's needed and when, and they built the fastest, easiest path to get you there. That's why serious startups get secure early with Vanta. Get [e-mail] profg that's V A N-T A.com profg vanta.com profg.

Support for the show comes from Shopify if you run a small business, you know there's nothing small about it. As a business owner myself, I get it every day there's a new decision to make and even the smallest decisions can feel massive. What can help the most is a platform with all the tools you need to be successful. A platform like Shopify Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names including Mattel and Gymshark to those brands just getting started. That's why they've developed an array of tools to help make running your small business easier. Their point of sale system is a unified command center for your retail business. It gives your staff the tools to they need to close the sale every time. And it lets your customers shop however they want, whether that's online, in store, or a combination of the two. Shopify's first party data tools give you insights that you can use to keep your marketing sharp and give your customers personalized experiences. And at the end of the day, that's the goal of any small business owner. Keeping your customers happy. Get all the big stuff for your small business ride with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shop. Shopify.com propg go to shopify.com propg shopify.com propg.

Support for this show comes from LinkedIn. If you've ever hired for your small business, you know how important it is to find the right person. That's why LinkedIn Jobs is stepping things up with their new AI assistant. So you can feel confident you're finding top talent that you can't find anywhere else. And those great candidates you're looking for are already on LinkedIn. In fact, according to their data, employees hired through LinkedIn are 30% more likely to stick around for at least a year compared to those hired through the leading competitor. That's a big deal when every hire counts. With LinkedIn Jobs AI Assistant, you can skip confusing steps and recruiting jargon. It filters through applicants based on criteria you've set for your role and services only the best matches so you're not stuck sorting through a mountain of resumes. LinkedIn LinkedIn Jobs AI Assistant can even suggest 25 great fit candidates daily. So you can invite them to apply and keep things moving. Hire right the first time. Post your job for [e-mail] Prof. Then promote it to use LinkedIn Jobs new AI assistant, making it easier and faster to find top candidates. That's LinkedIn.com Prof. To post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply.

You wrote for the Atlantic about this peace plan, which many are actually calling a capitulation document. Can you break down the quote, unquote, peace plan for us and what you think is the likelihood that something, that something resembling this ends up getting more traction than it has today?

[B]

There are a couple central pieces of it. I mean, I think the most controversial piece is that the US Is promising to recognize all or most of. I mean, there are now several versions of this kicking around, so I'm going to be a little vague, but all are some of Russia's, of the occupied territories of Ukraine. So that's Crimea, that's eastern Ukraine, Donbas, Luhansk, and maybe some of the other territories, too. But more than that, it asks the Ukrainians to give up territory that has not been conquered. So this is a part of Donetsk. Donetsk is a province of Ukraine. The Russians have conquered part of it. In fact, they conquered a lot of it in 2014 as part of a surprise attack right after they occupied Crimea. And they've really been trying to conquer this whole province since then, so 11 years, and they haven't been able to do it. And they're now losing again. I spoke to someone last night who reminded me of these numbers. They're now losing 15 to 20%, 20,000 people a month trying to conquer Donetsk. And I guess that's killed and wounded, but that's still 15 to 20,000 soldiers being knocked out every month in order to conquer this piece of territory that they can't conquer. And what they want is they want the Trump administration to intervene and give them this territory for free.

And this is not only controversial because it rewards the Russians for nothing, but also it's probably politically impossible. I don't think President Zelenskyy could stay in office. He can't stay in office and just turn over this piece of land. It's right now very heavily fortified land.

It's not especially, you know, populated anymore. Most people have left that part of Ukraine, but it's very heavily fortified. And so the Ukrainians would be giving up this fortified territory. And that would allow Russians then to set up, presumably to make another attempt to conquer Central Ukraine later on. And that's what it looks like to the Ukrainians. So the Russians haven't been able to win the war militarily. Now they're trying to win it through bribing the Americans, promising things to the Americans, and then getting the Americans to pressure the Ukrainians to give up this territory, supposedly in the name of peace. So that's probably the most controversial piece of.

The deal. And that seems to be something that Putin himself thought up, and it's been kicking around for a while. And in fact, when I first saw this document, I didn't make that much of it because some of the points have been around for a long time. And it was only when you'll remember a couple weeks ago, the President said the Ukrainians have to sign this by Thanksgiving, that suddenly this became salient and relevant in new ways. And then Trent, you know, then he dropped that idea anyway. So that was a piece of it. Recognition, not just de facto, but de jure, meaning formally recognizing that the Russians now control this Ukrainian territory, which also would be very unpopular in Ukraine. There was a line in it about how about organizing Ukrainian elections, which if you think about it, is a strange thing to put into a peace plan. I mean, the Ukrainians organizing elections is something they can do on their own. And what about the Russians organizing elections? The Russians haven't had free elections for 20 years. So it had that element in it that the Russians were somehow wanted to change the Ukrainian leadership and maybe hoped to shape the elections. That was the second.

Piece of the story. There was also, Ukraine has to promise never, ever, ever to join NATO and has to put that in its constitution again, pretty controversial. Don't know whether that could be done and that Western powers, European powers, would promise never to put troops on Ukrainian soil. And all this also creates another problem, which is if this war were to end even right now, you know, if there were to be a ceasefire on current lines, which is something the Ukrainians have accepted, in order for the peace to be real, in order for it to last longer than six months or a year or two years, there has to be some reason for Ukrainians to believe that the war isn't going to just start up again next week. So there has to be a guarantee, There have to be troops. There has to be NATO or something like NATO. There has to be something that will prevent Ukrainians from fleeing the country once the borders are opened. There has to be something that gives people the belief that they can invest in Ukraine, that they can rebuild Ukraine. There has to be Something that makes it a viable country. A lot of people often compare Ukraine to South Korea, which is another country that was divided and part of it was occupied. And nevertheless, South Korea remained a viable state. And it went on to become a very rich country, very successful country, kind of culturally successful in lots of ways. And people have said maybe that's a model for Ukraine. And it's true. You could imagine that kind of future, except that South Korea has American troops. You know, South Korea has defense agreements. You know, South Korea is defensible, and Americans have been willing to defend it for many decades, or at least that's been the assumption of the North Koreans. And you need something like that in Ukraine to make it viable. And it just doesn't seem like Witkoff or Jared Kushner or whoever is doing this negotiation now has come up with a version, something that would give the Ukrainians that sense of stability. So this is why people are talking about it as a kind of surrender document. So we give away land, and in exchange for what? For certainty that the Russians are going to invade again. The problem with this document, then, as I've already said, there are all these weird clauses about US Russian deals that are going to be done and money that US Is supposedly going to spend in Russia. And it looks from the outside like it's a US Russia deal that just isn't worried about the future of Ukraine or the future of Europe because, you know, a fall in Ukraine or a dysfunctional Ukraine has huge impact on security in Poland and Germany, all across the European continent. And it just feels like the Trump administration doesn't care.

[A]

So you spent a lot of time in Europe. Your husband is a senior official in the Polish government. What is the vibe, for lack of a better term, in Europe and especially in the nation's border in Ukraine around the war right now, Is it, stay the course, this is an unacceptable cost for Russia and Russians and eventually they will retreat, or is it, we're facing an inevitable end, which isn't a good one. I like what Lincoln said. You can't win a war without public support. You can't lose one with it. What is the state of public support across Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and Europe more broadly as it relates to this war?

[B]

So the Ukrainians are genuinely prepared to keep fighting. Their losses are far lower than the Russian losses. They know that they need outside support. And most of the nations of Europe, certainly those closest to Ukraine, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Germany as well have, are continually stepping up, offering not just weapons, but money. Remember, the Ukraine has its own defense Industry, it makes its own drones now, including these long range drones that can hit Russian targets and Russian refineries and so on. And I was there in September and at that moment there was still a lot of confidence. They were pretty sure they were going to make it through the winter. They didn't expect the Russians to stop fighting anytime soon. I mean, there's been a little bit of.

The huge pressure from Russian airstrikes in the last month or two, I think has been. And this is on Ukrainian cities. This has nothing to do with the front line. This is the people. You know, bombs hitting Kyiv, missiles hitting residential apartment buildings and so on. I think that's been pretty debilitating. But they don't, you know, you have to remember that if you're Ukrainian, you don't really see an option. Your option is you keep fighting the war or you let the Russian win and then they destroy you and your family and they wreck your country anyway. So it's not like they have this great choice and it's not like if the war ends then everything will be fine. And I think for the most part, I mean, there are variations inside each country. I think most of the countries around Ukraine feel the same way for Poland or for the Baltic states, for Romania, if Ukraine were to lose, that wouldn't mean, oh, okay, the war's over now and we can get on and do other things. No, that would mean it would be more expensive and they'd have to spend more money on defense and there would be more panic about where the Russians would go next and there would be more chaos from Ukrainian refugees and more economic disruption. So the prospect of a Russian victory doesn't make anybody feel like that would be an improvement. And so they too have this feeling that there's no choice so that they will keep fighting.

Until some better solution is reached. And I should say there's another weird thing about this whole U.S. russia negotiation, which is that they seem to be acting as if the Ukrainians and the Europeans have no agency. I mean, actually, the Europeans are now paying for the war. There is almost no US Supplies going in. They're paying for the war. They are supporting Ukraine, Ukraine economically. So actually, even if the US did bow out, they could keep going. And acting like this negotiation is some kind of US Russian agreement that doesn't involve the people who are actually doing the fighting and who are paying for the fighting is also very weird. I mean, it's just not how you do diplomacy. It's not going to get you to an. It's not Going to get you to an agreement that makes sense. And that's again, why I question the motives of, of the people who are involved.

[A]

Isn't that sort of the silver lining here? And that is the US is somewhat abdicated, withdrawn, gone awol, whatever you want to call it. And my understanding is that we are still supplying weapons, but we're forcing the Europeans to pay for them.

[B]

Not in, not in huge numbers. And the weapons that we're supplying, the thing that we have that other people don't have is air defense. And so it's mostly that. But most of the other weapons are coming from Europe or they're being made in Ukraine.

[A]

But isn't back to the notion of silver lining isn't to be fair. And I feel like Europe is always. Every headline on a broad basis about Europe as a whole is a pretty negative one about a lack of growth. It's becoming a museum, there's a lack of leadership. Hasn't Europe really stepped up here and filled this void and is in fact pushing back?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, not only are they pushing back and not only are they have they stepped up, often in ways that aren't attracting attention. You know, there's a lot of Danish help for the Ukraine and the Norwegians have been really important. There's a lot of smaller countries have played an important role. But you've also had, I think, especially since the US Election last year, I think there's been a real transformation in European understanding. You know, so the, of course, everybody's natural instinct is to say the war is far away, it doesn't touch us, and everybody prefers the safe status quo to involvement in some kind of unknown project. And I think you are finally beginning to see, especially in Germany, which is important because it's the largest European country, biggest economy, you're seeing a real transformation, like, okay, we get it, the post 1989 era is over. And the automatic assumption that the US will see the world the same way we do and shares our values is also over. And maybe we'll work with the Americas again in some way. I mean, nobody's writing them off altogether, but we're in a different era. And you can see that beginning to affect European politics in a lot of ways, especially in Germany, but also in other places. And you see investments going into the defense industry, new thinking about strategy, new kinds of relationships. I mean, a lot of things are changing. It's not ideal, mostly because Europe is not a federation. I mean, it's funny for all the kind of Euro skeptics about overbearing Europe and how it's. Supposedly they're creating a single state and so on. Actually, it's not a single state, and that's part of the problem. So it's very hard, it's still hard for Europe to act as one. And that's why you have this formula, the coalition of the willing. You had this group of countries who are working together, and the ones who care the most are involved the most. And that coalition of the willing is the group that's supporting Ukraine. But no, there's been a big change in Europe and European strategic thinking and in European understanding of the world. And I think the big realization that Europe has made a huge mistake in allowing the US to dominate the new technology, defense technology, but also the Internet AI, I think that's, it's, it's sunk in. I mean, everybody gets it. That that was a disastrous European failure.

Whether there's time to catch up, I don't know. But you certainly have now the formation of new companies and new thinking. I mean, I know you're interested in that.

That's begun. And, you know, it's interesting to see the connection between this geopolitical shift, which is happening kind of in the ether, and people saying, right, okay, we need our own stuff. And that's happening now.

[A]

If you have an absence of US Funding, limited cache of weapons from the US Going to Ukraine, and it's Ukrainians fighting on the ground, doing the fighting in combat, and you have Europe is responsible for the majority of the funding or the intelligence, when what feels like a peace plan architected by Russia and the U.S. i mean, is it, quite frankly, can't Ukraine and Europe and maybe have done this kind of say, hold my beer? And to a certain extent, hasn't the U.S. i mean, okay, we've walked away from our responsibilities, but haven't we walked away from all leverage here? And it, quite frankly, doesn't really matter what we think.

[B]

To some extent, that's true. I mean, I think that the. I think people are still hoping the US Will have some influence. There's a lot of, you know, maybe, you know, maybe false hope. I think there's, you know, there's a fear that a U.S. russia condominium, you know, kind of U.S. russia deal would be bad for everybody and we'd like to avoid it. So I didn't think people want some kind of huge break with the United States. But, yeah, I mean, the, the United States is not going to be able to dictate what happens in Ukraine, and they certainly won't be able to dictate a bad solution. And by bad solution, remember, it's what a bad solution means, that Ukraine is so badly weakened that Russia can invade again. That's like, that's the bad solution. And I don't think the US is going to be able to dictate that, even if that's what they're, you know, even if that's what they want. So no, the US doesn't has fewer and fewer cards and is going to have have less and less influence as time goes on. I think that's true.

[A]

We'll be right back.

Support for the show comes from Groons. The holidays are a time to indulge. But even if you're eating more than you typically do, you might not be getting the nutrients you actually need to end the year on a high note. Grunds may be able to help you fill the nutritional gap so you can enjoy it all guilt free. Grunds is a convenient, comprehensive formula packed into a tasty little pack of gummies. This isn't a multivitamin or greens, gummy or prebiotic. It's all of those things, and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. Every Gruy snack pack is filled with 6 grams of prebiotic fiber, which is more than what you get in 2 cups of broccoli. Plus Grunds are nut, gluten and dairy free, vegan, include no artificial intelligence flavors of colors, and are backed by over 35,000 research publications. Don't let the holiday travel, hosting parties and late night set you back. Give yourself a little extra support so you can enjoy all the holidays Magic. Get up to 52% off with code Prof. G at cruns co. That's code Prof. G r u n s co.

Support for today's show comes from Apollo Global Management. What if we're clinging to a status quo that no long exists? What if public markets no longer reflect the economy? What if your portfolio has hundreds of public holdings but only one story? What if growth lives where the index doesn't? What if large scale projects outlast the capital intended to fuel them? What if private markets power over 80% of US lending? What if a silver tsunami is no longer on the horizon? It's here. What if there's a hole in traditional retirement plans? What if we've constantly underestimated it, the impact of change? What if the financial world doesn't work the way you think it does? These aren't just hypotheticals. In a world moving forward, your thinking can't sit still. Reserve your first edition at Apollo.com askwhatif.

Support for the show comes from hims. It's winter, which means it's much easier to hide your hairline with that wool cap you wear day in, day out. But when the weather heats up, you're going to have to address what's going on underneath that hat. You shouldn't have to rearrange your life to deal with hair loss. HIMS makes expert care accessible on your schedule so you can focus on feeling like yourself again. HIMS offers convenient access to a range of prescription hair loss treatments with ingredients ingredients that work, including chews, oral medications, serums and sprays. Plus, Hims brings expert care straight to you with 100 online access to personalized treatment plans that put your goals first. No hidden fees, no surprise cost, just real personalized care on your schedule. For simple online access to personalized and affordable care for hair loss, ED, weight loss and more, visit himss.compropg that's hims.comprofg for your free online visit himss.compropg Individual results may vary based on studies of topical and oral minoxidil and finistrade. Featured products includes compounded drug products which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness or quality. Prescription required. See website for full details, restrictions and important safety information.

Foreign we're back with more from Ann Applebaum.

You have I love this, a kleptocracy tracker on your substack. What's the most worrying shift you're seeing right now? What is this Metric unearthed?

[B]

Right. So the kleptocracy tracker was something I started in this is regarding our previous conversation. I started it a few months ago just as because I felt like there were all these news stories that flashed by, you know, people being pardoned after making donations to the president's cryptocurrency fund, or regulation being lifted or regulation not being enforced. And I just felt like someone should keep track of it somewhere. And so I started doing it. And it actually appears on a Johns Hopkins website as well. The Agora Institute also publishes. They even created a little graphic so you can track it and click on it. I mean, I don't know how many people look at it or use it, but I'm hoping like at least historians of the future will be able to say that somebody was paying attention. And there are really two or three important shifts. One of them is this one that doesn't get attention I just mentioned, which is it's not just that the Trump administration is making money for itself or Trump Companies are benefiting from deals with the Saudis or investments in Vietnam. It's also that this administration is either refusing to enforce laws made in the past or is actively preventing new laws from being made. So laws designed to prevent the Foreign Corrupt Practices act, for example, or laws designed to regulate the cryptocurrency industry so that ordinary people wouldn't be ripped off. All kinds of regulation that's designed, mostly designed to benefit ordinary Americans and make sure that our system isn't corrupt and that people aren't ripped off by, by US or foreign companies. A lot of that is just being taken away. You know, they're just not enforcing it. They don't care anymore. And of course, the bad actors know that. And so when they see the legal system being taken apart and they, they know it's a free for all, they can just remove money from people's cryptocurrency wallets, which happens more often than you think, you know, or, or, you know, or they can violate the law or they can, you know, they can do as they please because they know that nobody's watching them. And I think that's, and that doesn't get a lot of attention because it's not, you know, it's not very exciting news to say that the Trump administration has decided it won't enforce X or Y law. But that's going to create the long term problems, you know, if we create this atmosphere of lawlessness where, you know, you can buy a pardon from the president if you've broken the law, you can assume that nobody will enforce regulation. If you decide to break it, you can rip people off and you won't pay any price. Price. You can do all these things with impunity. I mean, that begins to create a kind of business culture that is ultimately bad for everyone. I mean, I guess, you know, bad guys will benefit from it. But if you've ever lived or worked in a really corrupt country, and I, I have.

You know, I, I spent a lot of time in Russia in the 1990s. I spent a lot of time in Ukraine actually, in the era before it began to reform itself. And you know, I remember that it's a, even for, I mean, maybe particularly for ordinary people, you know, daily life is different in a really, really corrupt country. You know, you don't make business investments in a normal way. You can't make judgments about how to work or where to work unless, you know, you know, who's really in charge or who's the person behind each one of these companies.

It distorts ordinary life and ordinary decision making.

In Russia, universities became very corrupt, the state services became very corrupt. I mean, if you wanted a driver's license or any kind of license, you could pay for it, and people knew that. And then that has a corresponding effect on safety and so on. So you can get into this very ugly downward drift if you don't stop it soon. And as I said, I mean, the main problem in the United States is just the lack of awareness. I mean, we're so used to our system running on autopilot. You know, assuming that people, more or less, most people obey the law and more or less, you know, things work. And once that, once the kind of critical mass is reached and that's no longer true, then it's going to be very hard to fix.

[A]

What impact do you think the war in Ukraine? Let's assume that it's it in, say, nine, 10 months. It's loosely in the same place it is now. Right. I wouldn't describe it at a standstill. I would describe the war rages on. What impact do you think it's going to have on the midterm elections?

[B]

That's an interesting point. It depends what it looks like. If it looks exactly like it does now, you know, maybe there wouldn't be an impact. But if there has been a series of failed Trump peace efforts that were transparently grifting that they weren't really about peace, or if there has been some kind of Trump Russia, Trump Putin agreement to start doing business over the heads of the Ukrainians and the Europeans, I don't think Americans will find that attractive. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people won't care. Foreign policy is far away. Ukraine is pretty remote to a lot of people. But I still think, and this is something I know because I've seen surveys about this, America still like to think about their country being a good country. We like to think of ourselves being a positive force in the world. I mean, reasonable people can disagree about what that means. And.

Maybe not everyone's definition of good is the same, but they don't like the idea that the main, in the big issues and in the big arenas, that the main motivation of the United States of America is the wealth of a few people who are close to the president. I just don't think Americans are going to like that. And I don't know that it would be the main issue in the midterms, but I think it would be something that would certainly affect people's perception of Trump and maybe of the Republican Party.

[A]

It's Strange. It feels as if, and I don't know if this is Trump or more specifically the cloud cover for this being the idolatry or the increasing idolatry of the dollar in the United States. But it feels as if diplomacy itself is being replaced by private capital networks, sovereign funds, energy deals, rare earth investments, data centers, and that the reporting shows that billionaires operating outside of the traditional lines of diplomacy, whether it's Wyckoff or Kushner on the US Side, Kirill Dmitriev on the Russian side, hammering out drafts in Miami and shuttling between Mar? A Lago and Moscow. A. What do you think of this? And I think I know the answer to this. What do you think of this? Business first diplomacy. And are there any analogs when other nations basically diplomacy gets co opted by what I'll call these private capital billionaire networks?

[B]

That is literally the Russian. That is exactly the Russian system. I mean, the Russian system is that you have companies like Gazprom which are nominally private but which are really owned by people who also run the country and they use their. Russian foreign policy has been kind of commercial and diplomatic and political all mixed up for a long time. And the purpose of a Gazprom investment in a foreign country would be partly to make money for the people who run Gazprom, and partly it would be to achieve some goal for the Russian state.

And particularly in oil and gas. But not only. Russian companies have been inseparable from, from the state for a long time. And it's created this ugly system where all of government and all of foreign policy is really just designed to benefit this kind of ownership class. And we are really very much at risk of that in America. That government isn't for everybody. It's not to make all of us rich and prosperous. It's not to project a set of American values into the world, which has been true at least some of the time of American foreign policy, certainly since the Second World War. But you could argue further back than that. And instead of being this, you know, the kind of outward representation of us and our values and our, you know, our desire for prosperity and a good life, it's actually just designed for those people. And that's really how the, you know, I mean, Russia is maybe the most prominent example of this. But you can look at other autocratic states and say the same thing about them. And this is the argument of my recent book was Autocracy Inc. Is that it's a mistake to look at the world's autocrats, even when they have different IDEOLOGIES you know, Russia and China and Iran and North Korea, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, you know, they have very different ideologies, but they all often work in some of the same ways. And one of the ways that one of the things they have in common is this kleptocratic model, you know, that the rulers of the country are also the owners of the biggest businesses, and they use their business relations with one another to make money for themselves. And they hide money in the same ways they hide money in the Caribbean or in. Or indeed in Delaware, and they move money around the world anonymously, and they share ways of doing that, and that. That's part of what keeps them all in power. And it looks in. You know, the Trump administration is still not free to behave in that way. You know, we still live in a democracy and we still have, you know, we still, I hope, will have congressional investigations and we have courts and so on. But they. They seem to be pushing the country in that direction. And clearly there are very wealthy people in the tech world and in the crypto world and in other industries who want the US to develop very much in that direction. A kind of a state where political power and economic power are the same thing, and the politicians own the companies and they act in their interests, not our interests.

[A]

So I love books about war and movies. And one of the things I think I've sussed out from them is that wars don't change history, they sort of accelerate it. And that is they take existing trends and massively pull the future forward, if you will, and countries on the ascent come out big winners. And countries. Arguably Britain's finest moment was World War II, but it essentially accelerated the decline of the empire. They could no longer hold on to their empire, if you will, within Europe. Who do you see? As if there's a reshuffling here and a dramatic increase or decrease in power. And I'll put forward a thesis. My sense is this is a really big moment for Poland. But A, do you agree with that? And B, who do you see as the biggest winners and losers across Europe?

[B]

Yeah, I think Poland sees itself very much as being a country that will play a role in deciding what happens next in Ukraine and will play an increasingly influential role in helping other European countries shape their security decisions. I mean, there's some interesting. There's a very close Polish, Swedish relationship. The Poles just bought some submarines from Sweden. You see this kind of scandal, this kind of countries around the Baltic.

Working together in lots of ways and actually often including the uk so you kind of UK Scandinavia, Baltic, Poland alliance, which is emerging as a really important alliance of countries just because they share values and they, they have a similar view of the world and they work together in new ways. And you're seeing that emerging. I mean, there's also a Polish German relationship that's really important. Actually the Polish government, I'm not sure they're still there today, but as we're speaking, they were there yesterday. Several senior Polish ministers, including the Prime Minister were all in Germany. There was a kind of big multi leveled, multi layered conference was held in which they, they, they, you know, there's still endless historical issues to work out, but in which they're looking at ways of working together economically and in security. I mean you, you can see those kinds of links developing and becoming more important. You know, it's almost as if in the past a lot of stuff went kind of through NATO, like through America, you know, there was a Polish, America, German link and now everybody's looking around and saying, wait, is going through America or through NATO is that safe?

We need to have much stronger country to country links that don't depend on some assumption of permanent American presence in Europe. So yeah, I think Poland is also a country that is doing well economically and looked at over the, the span of 30 years, has been doing well the whole time. I mean, it's caught up to Western Europe.

It's still not as rich as Germany, but if I recall.

I'd have to check. I think it's richer than Greece per capita and I think it's richer than Portugal per capita. And so if you're looking at Western European countries, so it's caught up to Western Europe faster than it has ever before at any time in history and.

And continues to develop and grow in a way that you would not have guessed or imagined a couple of decades ago. So yeah, I think Poland up, Germany changing. I mean the UK is the country that worries me the most. Just because I think the damage done by Brexit is still working its way through the system doesn't mean there aren't brilliant people there and great companies and all that.

But.

It lost so many markets and so many opportunities through that one stupid decision that I worry it's falling further behind and I don't want that because I lived in London for a long time. I'm a fan of British culture and many other things. But that's what. Anyway, it's interesting. There's often a lot of, in the UK now there's almost a kind of, if they keep writing articles in the British press about how great Poland is. And what if Poland catches up to Britain? I mean, it's almost. There's a kind of cultural snobbery there. Like, it can't possibly be the case that Poles are as rich as we are.

But there is something happening whereby they're coming. Certainly they're a lot closer in terms of GDP per capita anyway than they were ever before.

[A]

Do you have a sense for having spent time in Russia and I imagine still having contacts there, how do Russians feel about the state of the war and the relationship with the US And China?

What's the vibe again? I hate to use that word in Russia right now with respect to the.

[B]

War, it's really hard to say. So, first of all, I had a lot of Russian friends at one point, and they are all gone. They have all left Russia, they're elsewhere in Europe, some are in the US.

And so I don't have friends inside Russia anymore, at least none that I would be able to talk to. It's also.

Genuinely impossible to measure something called public opinion in Russia, because this is a country in which to be against the war is illegal, and people are arrested for saying things that are against the war. And so that means that if you're conducting an opinion poll and you call someone up and you say, how do you feel about the war? What are they going to tell you? They're going to say, I'm all for it.

It's not something that you can measure. And there isn't also a kind of public sphere in which these things are discussed. It's not like there's a place where people talk about the war and debate whether it's good or bad in any real way. So, you know, so what are people's opinions is. It almost doesn't matter because they won't tell you what their opinions are because they keep them to themselves. I mean, I do have. There's a part of the Russian opposition that measures kind of sentiment on the Internet. They use those kinds of metrics and they say that exhaustion with the war and disappointment with the war are pretty widespread. And another metric you could look at is the number of Russian elite people in the Russian elite who have fallen out of windows or have succumbed to mysterious accidents in the last couple years. And almost all of those are probably people who in some way were seen as insufficiently enthusiastic about the war or about Putin. So it's pretty clear there's. If Putin were to say, tomorrow the war is over and now we can move on, I think people would be happy they would probably be very happy to end this terrible number of deaths. I mean, imagine the United States, imagine 20,000 people a month dying or being mortally injured and how that would affect us and how we would be.

[A]

We wouldn't do it. Unthinkable, isn't that, quite frankly, Russia's core competence is willing to endure more suffering, far more than Europe or the U.S. there's no way we would do, do this. No way we would let a million Americans be injured or killed. We would have found a reason to get a helicopter on the embassy and get the hell out a year and a half ago. And I think we consistently underestimate the Russians willingness to subject their citizenry to pain.

[B]

Yeah, I think we do. I don't think the Ukrainians underestimate them. I mean, my last month, a lot of recent conversations I've had in Ukraine have been with people who say, right, we get it, the Russians don't care how many people we kill. I mean, we're going to go on killing them because. Because that's how we keep our country sovereign. But they shifted strategy some months ago and they began really focusing on hitting Russian oil export and oil refining facilities. And they do that because they say, okay, they don't care about people, but they care about money and they care about wealth. And so we're going to try to hit them in the places where they're making the most money. And actually just in the last couple days, they've started hitting tankers.

So far it's empty tankers, just in case you're worried about oil spills. They hit a couple of tankers that were going into a port. Oil tankers, I think they were under a Gambian flag. But we all understand that this is called the shadow fleet. We understand that they're Russian or they're going to be carrying Russian oil. And they also have had this campaign to hit Russian refineries and they've hit several dozen of them. And they do it repeatedly and they do it almost every night.

I was in a Ukrainian long range drone factory in September and they showed me these drones. They're like little airplanes, they're large. These aren't little drones. These are huge drones. And I said, how many do you make? And they now make a hundred a day. These are very sophisticated little planes. And how many do you launch every day? And they say we launch 100 a day. They have this permanent now campaign of hitting Russian oil and gas infrastructure all the time. And this is when they describe it to me, they say this is the Real sanctions. The sanctions that the US And Europe do are now full of holes. The US Isn't really enforcing them anymore. It's too easy for everybody else to buy oil and gas from Russia, and so we're going to make it more difficult. And that's now really important and very underreported for reasons that I don't really understand, but a very underreported part of how Ukraine is fighting as well. So they understand that killing people won't win the war, but maybe doing enough damage to infrastructure could. And their theory of victory now involves that, you know, we do enough damage that they at least have to stop fighting. And that's, you know, but. But you're right. I mean, killing a million people, so what?

[A]

So in our remaining three minutes here, and you've been generous with your time, I want to move to something much lighter. You said that you had lived in Russia. I know you've lived in the U.S. what other nations have you lived in?

[B]

I lived in London.

I lived in Poland. I live in Poland. Actually, I spent about half my time in Poland. I live in Warsaw. And then we have a house in northwest Poland as well. In the country. We renovated old house. I haven't really lived anywhere else, but I spent a lot of time flying around and staying in other places. Spent a lot of time in Ukraine.

[A]

So. Stack rank. You're 25. You're thinking you have some skills, a lot of geographic mobility. Stack rank. The best. The upside and the downside of living in all those nations for a young professional.

[B]

Well, rush is out. You don't want. Don't be kidnapped. Honestly, if I had the right kind of skills, and I don't, but maybe a young person would. I would be trying to work in the Ukrainian drone industry.

[A]

That's where it really feels like that could be the fuel that rebuilds that economy.

[B]

It will. I mean, once the fighting stops. They're now so far ahead of everybody else, everybody's going there to learn how they're doing it, including Americans and including the British and including the Poles. Obviously, I would do that. So, actually, the country where I see the most innovation and where things are really exciting is there. I mean, obviously, you know, you have to be pretty tolerant of. Of loud noises at night and so on, but. But. But I would do that. And then, you know, I. Yeah, I mean, Poland.

Poland. Once you overcome whatever cultural differences there are, and there are some. It's still a country where there are all kinds of. Of wide open spaces. You know, there are kind of things that haven't been done and companies that haven't been created. And I would think that that would be a great place to live. And I don't know, I mean, for me the London is still the greatest city in the world and I'd be happy to, I'd be happy to be transplanted there again anytime.

[A]

So that's a, that's a nice note to end on that. Wouldn't it be nice if when this war is over that Ukraine becomes a magnet for human capital and potential, potential and optimism and economic growth. I like the, I like the thought of that. Anne Applebaum is a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, staff writer at the Atlantic. She's also a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins. Her books include Gulag A History, Red Famine, Stalin's War in Ukraine, and her latest, Autocracy Inc. She joins us from the Atlantic office in Washington, D.C. and we absolutely love having you on. We have our listeners are generally kind of younger and more male and I just love that we introduce them to historians and really thoughtful people that they may not come in contact with across their other channels. So very much appreciate your time and how in demand you must be right now. Thanks very much, Anne.

[B]

Thanks. It's always a real pleasure to talk to you. Thank you.

[A]

This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez. Our assistant producer is Laura Gena. Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the ProPG pod from ProPG Media.

This message comes from at&t. America's first network is also its fastest and most Reliable based on RootMetrics United States Root Score Report first half 2025 tested with best commercially available smartphones on three national mobile networks across all available network types. Your experiences may vary. Rootmetric's rankings are not an endorsement of AT and T. When you compare, there's no comparison.

[B]

AT and T.

Support for the show comes from Train Dreams, the new film from Netflix. Based on Dennis Johnson's novella. Train Dreams is the moving portrait of a man who leads a life of unexpected depth and beauty during a rapidly.

[A]

Dream time in America.

[B]

Set in the early 20th century, it's an ode to a vanishing way of life and to the extraordinary possibilities that exist within even the simplest of existences. In a time when we are all searching for purpose, Train Dreams feels timeless because the frontier isn't just a place, it's a state of being. Train Dreams now playing only on Netflix.

Support for this show comes from Atlassian.

[A]

Wish projects could manage themselves with Jira.

[B]

AI powered project management software. Keeping things organized and on track is a snap. AI agents manage the busy work handling details that let your team focus on.

[A]

The work that matters. Now that's a team changer.

[B]

Visit Atlassian.com Jira to learn more.

[A]

That's a T L-A-S-S I-A N.com J-I.

[B]

R A Atlassian.com Jira.