Why is the Republican Party's stance on international leadership being criticized?

Bret Stephens criticizes the Republican Party for what he calls the 'dumb version of wrong,' which includes abandoning democratic allies like Ukraine, showing fondness for autocrats like Putin, and retreating into isolationism, echoing past mistakes.

What is Bret Stephens' view on supporting Ukraine against Russia?

Stephens argues strongly for supporting Ukraine, emphasizing both the moral imperative to aid a democratic ally and the significant self-interest the US has in seeing its geopolitical rival, Russia, humbled and defeated on the battlefield by proxy.

How does the death of Alexei Navalny impact the discussion on Russia?

Navalny's death sharpens the moral contrast between democratic societies and Putin's regime. Stephens highlights Navalny as an exemplar of courage and conscience, arguing that standing up for such figures and punishing the regime is a foreign policy imperative.

What are the arguments against Putin's nuclear blackmail?

Stephens suggests that Putin's nuclear threats are a form of blackmail. He argues that the tactical use of nuclear weapons is militarily unlikely due to readiness, battlefield implications, and potential self-incineration, and that yielding to blackmail advances Russia's war aims.

Why is it considered naive to believe Putin would stop with Ukraine?

Drawing parallels with Russian history and dictators like Hitler, Stephens argues that Russia has historically been expansionary, and dictators, like alcoholics, are rarely satisfied with one conquest. He believes Putin has further designs beyond Ukraine.

What are the main criticisms leveled against Israel regarding the Gaza conflict?

Criticisms include Israel's perceived isolation at the UN and before the International Criminal Court, waning support in the Biden administration, and issues stemming from right-wing Israeli politics and West Bank settlements, with charges of apartheid and moral confusion.

Key Moments

America & World Order: A Conversation with Bret Stephens (Episode #357)

Sam Harris

Science & Technology4 min read33 min video

Mar 5, 2024|55,159 views|1,164|466

sam harris sam harris podcast waking up podcast waking up waking up with sam harris sam harris waking up waking up sam harris sam harris jordan peterson sam harris joe rogan author neuroscientist philosopher

Save to Pod

Key Moments

TL;DR

Bret Stephens and Sam Harris discuss global order, US isolationism, Ukraine, Putin's aggression, and the Gaza conflict.

Key Insights

American isolationism and Republican embrace of autocracy represent a dangerous departure from historical US leadership.

Supporting Ukraine is a strategic imperative for the US, offering a cost-effective way to weaken a geopolitical rival.

Putin's actions, including the death of Navalny and aggression in Ukraine, reveal his expansionary and despotic nature.

Nuclear blackmail should not deter Western support for Ukraine, as Russia has strong incentives against using nuclear weapons.

Criticism of Israel's policies in the West Bank should be distinct from antisemitism and the need for Israel's self-defense.

The conflict in Gaza highlights the complex issue of Palestinian public opinion and the need for decisive action against Hamas.

THE WAXING AND WANING OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

The conversation opens by addressing a perceived shift towards American isolationism, particularly within the Republican party. This trend is characterized not just by a desire to de-emphasize the US role as a global policeman, but by an alarming embrace of autocratic regimes and leaders like Putin. This is seen as a strategic misstep, abandoning democratic allies and emboldening adversaries like China. The idea that the US should focus solely on China and sacrifice Ukraine is labeled the 'smart version of wrong,' while the current Republican stance is deemed the 'evil version of wrong' for abandoning a courageous ally that has significantly degraded Russian military capacity without American casualties.

THE STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE OF SUPPORTING UKRAINE

Supporting Ukraine is presented as a matter of vital US self-interest, not just a moral obligation. The argument is made that humbling a dangerous geopolitical rival like Russia on the battlefield, through a proxy, is an incredibly cost-effective investment. The $60 billion aid package, while substantial, represents only 1% of the US federal budget. Failing to support Ukraine is seen as an advertisement to China, encouraging more aggressive postures, and potentially leading to future conflicts in Europe due to treaty obligations. The speaker contrasts the 'smart' strategic calculation with the current Republican approach, which is described as ignorant and damaging to US interests.

THE NATURE OF PUTIN'S REGIME AND NAVALNY'S LEGACY

The discussion delves into the nature of Vladimir Putin's regime, highlighting his brutal suppression of dissent, exemplified by the death of Alexei Navalny. Navalny is remembered not just for his courage but for his potent critique of authoritarianism, serving as a symbol of individual conscience against state power. The regime's actions, including the imprisonment of journalists and the murder of critics, are contrasted with the values of free societies. The potential consequences of failing to hold Putin accountable for Navalny's death are underscored, suggesting it emboldens future dissidents but also weakens the moral standing of democratic nations.

NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL AND RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM

The fear of nuclear blackmail from Russia is addressed, with the acknowledgment that while the possibility of nuclear weapons use by a rogue state exists, it has not occurred in 75 years. The speaker argues that tactical nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used due to logistical, tactical, and intelligence reasons, including advance warning and the self-destructive nature of such an attack on occupied territory. Furthermore, the idea that Putin would be satisfied with Ukraine alone is dismissed due to Russia's historical expansionism and the nature of dictatorships, drawing parallels to Hitler's territorial ambitions. The current aggression is seen as part of a pattern, not an isolated event.

CRITICISMS OF ISRAEL AND THE GAZA CONFLICT

The conversation shifts to the Middle East, addressing the international perception of Israel following the Gaza conflict. Distinctions are made between valid criticisms of Israeli policies, such as settlement expansion in the West Bank and the deferral of Palestinian statehood, and charges of antisemitism. The isolation of Israel at international bodies like the UN and the ICC is noted. The speaker emphasizes the need for decisive military action against Hamas, while also acknowledging the complexities of Palestinian public opinion. The argument suggests that while criticism of Israeli policy is legitimate, it should not overshadow Israel's existential needs and right to self-defense.

VALID CRITICISMS AND THE NEED FOR A TWO-STATE SOLUTION

The discourse touches upon the charges of apartheid leveled against Israel and the perceived moral confusion surrounding the conflict. It's highlighted that criticisms of Israeli policies, especially concerning the West Bank, should remain distinct from antisemitism. The long-term strategic interests of Israel are considered, alongside the international pressure it faces. The conversation implicitly supports the idea that a resolution to the Palestinian question, potentially through a two-state solution, remains a necessary, albeit currently challenging, pathway forward to achieving lasting peace and security in the region.

Mentioned in This Episode

●Organizations

●Concepts

●People Referenced

Common Questions

The conversation primarily focuses on the current state of global affairs, including the waning American leadership (Pax Americana), the war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, the influence of Russia and China, and the upcoming US presidential election.

Topics

Society & Philosophy Ukraine Conflict Geopolitical Strategy American Foreign Policy Middle East Politics Politics & Policy Russian Aggression

Mentioned in this video

Organizations

New York Times

Newspaper where Bret Stephens works as an opinion columnist.

Hamas

Palestinian militant organization, the need for its total military defeat is mentioned in the context of the Gaza war.

United Nations, mentioned in the context of Israel's isolation.

Biden Administration

The current US presidential administration, with discussion about waning support for the war in Gaza and Biden's age problem.

Concepts

Pax Americana

The concept of American dominance and peace, which the discussion suggests is waning.

Gaza

Region central to the ongoing conflict with Israel, discussed in terms of international perception and Israel's strategic needs.

Hobbesian

Referring to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, used to describe a 'dog eat dog' world in foreign policy.

Books

Austin Powers

Film series, a scene from which is referenced to illustrate the relative insignificance of $60 billion in the context of a large budget.

People

Sam Harris

Host of the Making Sense podcast, discussing current events and geopolitical issues.

Gary Kasparov

Chess grandmaster and human rights activist, suggested not recognizing Putin's legitimacy.

Bill Browder

Financier and activist, suggested seizing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine.

Hezbollah

Lebanese militant group, mentioned in relation to potential war with Iran.

Jean-François Revel

French writer and philosopher, quoted on the mystery of why people choose to be tyrannized.

Bret Stephens

Opinion columnist for The New York Times, former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, and Pulitzer Prize winner.

Rory Stewart

Previous guest on the Making Sense podcast whose second conversation was found frustrating by some listeners.

Tucker Carlson

Commentator criticized for his perceived fondness for Putin and his reporting from Russia.

Václav Havel

Czech dissident and former president, mentioned as an example of an anti-totalitarian intellectual.

Locations

Russia

Country that banned Bret Stephens for life and is discussed in the context of its geopolitical actions and its president, Putin.

Soviet Union

Former country, discussed in historical context regarding totalitarianism and its collapse.

Ukraine

Country at war with Russia, discussed extensively regarding US and Republican support, its strategic importance, and the implications of its potential fall.

China

Geopolitical rival of the United States, discussed as a primary threat that requires US resources, and its potential aggression towards Taiwan.

West Bank

Territory discussed in relation to Israeli settlements and policies, deemed abusive and detrimental.

Israel

Country discussed in the context of the war in Gaza, its international standing, criticisms of its policies, and existential needs.

Media

Wall Street Journal

Newspaper for which Bret Stephens was a Foreign Affairs columnist and won a Pulitzer Prize.

Legislation & Policy

Magnitsky sanctions

Sanctions that Bill Browder was behind, mentioned in the context of seizing Russian assets.