You and Me Both is a production of I Heart Radio, I'm Hillary Clinton, and this is You and Me Both. Over the course of this season of the podcast, we've been looking at the challenges democracy faces right here in our own country, from the relentless assault on voting rights in the States to an ideologically driven Supreme Court whose decisions have dire consequences for our civil rights and freedom. Today, we're taking our exploration of the battle to save democracy abroad, unpacking the motivations behind the brutal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia. The war in Ukraine has captured the world's attention since Russia began its assault on February. I don't know about you, but my heart just rakes watching the Russian military shelling cities, destroying apartment buildings, community centers, religious institutions, homes, lives, everything in their way. And yet my heart also soars while I watched the Ukrainians bravely persevere in the fight against this attack to preserve their country and their freedom. There has been incredible reporting from the front lines that is keeping us informed. But I want to do something a little different today and take advantage of the expertise and insights of two Gats I know and admire, to talk about how we got here, where this may be heading, what this crisis has to do with us and with our democracy here in the United States as well as elsewhere. Later, I'll be speaking with Mike McFall, who served as ambassador to Russia when I was Secretary of State. We both had a front row seat to Putin's return to power in twelve and we both have some interesting stories to share from that time. But first, I'm talking to historian and journalist An Applebaum, and has been writing about Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, democracy and authoritarianism for years. I don't think it's hyperbole to say she's one of the smartest journalists out there, particularly when it comes to what's happening right now. You may have seen or read one of her many books and articles. She's currently a staff writer at The Atlantic. I've often looked to Anne to bring a wide lens and historical context to the current events in Europe and Russia. Uh and I was eager to talk to her about what's happening now. And lives mostly in Warsaw, Poland, but she's currently teaching a course un Democracy at Johns Hopkins University. So for this conversation, we reached her in Baltimore. Hello and hello Hilary. How nice to see you. It is really nice to see you. I have to say You've been a constant source of information and explanation for me over a number of years, but particularly over the last few years. And I'm delighted that you can take some time to be on this podcast. So welcome, Thank you. I'm flattered to be asked and very happy to join you to get us started. You know, there's been a lot of speculation about Putin's mindset, and I have my own experience as a Secretary of State and apparently one of his favorite people on the planet. Um, and you are an expert on authoritarianism, democracy, Eastern Europe, and so much else. You wrote a really prescient, very smart piece three weeks before the invasion in the Atlantic called the Reason Putin would risk War? So and unpack that for us. What do you know about Putin that enabled you to see that when so many other people were happy to put their heads in the sand. So, first of all, thanks for having me, and thanks for that particular question. Um, there is a relevance to you, which I which I'll get you in a second. Um Putin is someone who was very shaped by the events of in the way that all of us were. But he was shaped differently from from you and me and many listeners. We I was in Eastern Europe and nineteen nine I watched the ballin Wall fell. It was a moment of great excitement, feeling of liberation, uh In, when the Soviet Union came to an end, that felt like a possibility for a new beginning. It was a great moment for Russia. Um Putin experienced all those events from exactly the opposite point of view. So he saw the Berlin Wall. To him, he saw democracy activists, demonstrators on the street, forced the legitimate government out of power and forced him to make this humiliating retreat. You know. There he was, you know, a member of the Imperial Police, you know, policing East Germany with which is where he was based at the time, the KGB headquarters in Dresden. They had to burn their papers in the courtyard. Um They called Moscow for reinforcements. None came, and they understood the empire was over. He's written about that and spoken about it several times, so we know he remembers that. You know, he then retreated back to Russia. UM, where he was part of this, you know, his generation's extraordinary theft of resources. Actually they stole money from the state, they then laundered in the West. UM. They then brought it back to Russia, and they brought themselves back to power. But he's always harbored this, this memory of that humiliating defeat, and for him, it was both a defeat of the empire, but it was also the victory of what he sees as a kind of Western virus, you know, and um, an anti autocratic ideology. You know, the language of democracy, the language of freedom, the language of rights, the language of anti corruption. UM. These are the things that he thinks are the most dangerous to his form of power, and he fears that it could bring him down exactly the way that it brought down the Soviet Union. You figure in this because inn when there were genuine democracy protests in Moscow, UM, and these were I stipulate, grassroots demonstrations organized in Russia by Russians. His reaction was the United States and the CIA and Hillary Clinton have organized these in order to take me down um. So he sees all of that language and all of those movements he perceives as being somehow orchestrated by the United States. It comes from the West, it's being done secretly. He can't believe that it's authentic and real. And his hatred of Ukraine comes from exactly this, because Ukraine is a country that has been trying for three decades to achieve independence, democracy, freedom and sovereignty, most recently in teen when another enormous grassroots democracy movement forced an autocratic president who is breaking the Ukrainian constitution, forced him to flee the country. And that is what he is most afraid of. And so Ukraine for him is this representative of a set of ideas that he doesn't like. I mean, there may there is a historical component as well, and this, you know, this kind of traditional Russian feeling that Ukraine is not a real country and it's just part of us. But it's also what's truly motivating him is that this is the language, the language that's used by the Ukrainian president that we're all hearing him using now is a problem for him personally. This is what he's afraid of. Russian's hearing and adopting a successful, prosperous democratic Ukraine would be such a challenge to his form of government that he can't tolerate it. How do you think, you know, Putin judged this time. You know, obviously he had an incredibly wonderful experience with four years of Trump, who was parroting everything that he wanted to hear. Why now do you think that this has happened? So it's a it's a good question. It's actually clear from the nature of the attack that this is something he's been thinking about for a long time. Um, He's been planning it for a long time. He's even been planning the propaganda around it for a long time. UM. It was not a spontaneous attack provoked by something Joe Biden said, or Zelinsky said, I think he chose the moment for a reason. I think there are a few things going on. One is that I think during the Trump administration, Putin believed that he might have a way to at Ukraine back, or to weaken Ukraine, or to undermine Ukraine, maybe even using the United States. Um, he hoped that Trump would be an accessory to that. And I think Putin hope that it may be in a second Trump term, um, that task would be completed. UM. I think he also imagined both that America was more divided and also that American Europe were more divided than they are. He did not expect the reaction of the alliance. So it's not just the United States as the United States plus Europe plus other allies. Actually Japan has been very supportive as well, who are joining in the sanctions, who are helping with military aid. You know, he has a narrative about the West being degenerate and the West being finished um in the West, you know term in power being over. And I think he believed his own narrative um, and so he thought that this, this would be a good moment to strike. I agree with that. I think that, as you say, this is something that he's long been planning, and it was opportunistic. Now, as shocking as it is to see that invasion, I think a lot of people are similarly just totally confused and frankly heartbroken about the brutality. Anybody who followed what Putin did in Czechnia, or in Syria or even in you know, the parts of Ukraine that he seized. I think ten thousand people have died since and ongoing fighting with Russian proxies as well as the Russian military. So what do you think is the best case outcome here? The best case outcome is that Ukraine wins um and by winning I mean that the Russian troops are forced out of the country. You're exactly right to point to the behavior of Russian troops in previously occupied territories in the past. What we know about occupied Crimea is that they came in, they arrested anyone who they thought might be a dissident. They expelled people from the country, People were disappeared, people were kidnapped on the street who they thought might be political opponents. As the Russians move into eastern Ukraine, they are behaving like the nkb D, which was the precursor of the KGB did in Eastern Europe. Sometimes I have this horrible deja vu because I wrote a book about exactly that period, and they came in, they had lists of people to arrest, they terrorized the population, and they brought in a regime of terror. And my guess is that the Russians will do the same. And this is why I say this, because this is why the Ukrainians are fighting, It's not just about sovereignty. It's also that they know their entire way of life will be destroyed if the Russians come um and for that reason, the only positive outcome that and I think the one outcome that the United States should be working towards, is that the Russians withdraw. Any remaining Russian presence in those territories is going to be pure hell for the people who live there. Right, I agree with that completely, certainly in any communication I've had with anybody in any position to influence our policy, I think that is exactly what we should be aiming for, which means that we need to have even more lethal aid flowing into Ukraine to help support them. Where do you stand on this whole issue and about you know, direct NATO involvement, particularly direct American involvement, in doing more than providing equipment and obviously intelligence and financial support to help the Ukrainians, uh, you know, defend themselves. So I understand why the White House and NATO are reluctant to have a direct confrontation between NATO troops and Russian troops. You know, I understand where that comes from. I understand that people. It's not just that people are afraid of nuclear war. It's also that, you know, we haven't had a proxy war with Russia since Afghanistan in the nineteen eighties, which was a completely different war, completely different era, not the same stakes in terms of you know, in terms of nuclear weapons and so on, and people just don't know what the rules are. I mean, what counts as galactian? What's a provocation? You know, I don't think we have the same kinds of back channels. There's no polit bureau, there are no intermediate institutions with which we have relationships. Um. It's not clear even that ambassadors, you know, have any influence in this, you know, in the Putin regime, so it's we don't have any contacts with them. Um. So I understand that reluctance. However, I also worry that some in Washington and elsewhere haven't really understood what the stakes are here. I mean, I don't think we can allow Ukraine to be defeated. I think that it would have such catastrophic consequences for us and for our allies, um, you know, both in inviting Putin to come into those territories and in terms of what it would mean for you know, for the self confidence of NATO allies, but also other allies around the world. I hope that people in Washington are beginning to be a little bit more creative that if a no fly zone is out, then um, you know, are we thinking about doing big millet verry exercises in the Baltic Sea in order to draw Russian troops away? Are we thinking about ways of training and army Ukrainians that we haven't tried before. One of the things that you've done so effectively over the last couple of years, particularly is to link what the stakes are between this rise of autocracy, particularly the aggressive disinformation campaigns of Russia, but linking it to arise in either an indifference or contempt or rejection of democracy on the part of too many people in my view, in Europe and in the United States. Do you think that this could be a turning point in waking people up as to what is at stake and what could be lost if we don't protect our freedom and our our democratic institutions. I think all of the people who took democracy for granted in our society and in in our in Allied societies suddenly realized how much they would have to lose, and how much value there is in the institutions that we have, and why we need to protect them and reinforce them. I mean, it's been actually very interesting to watch how some of the pro Russian politicians in Europe have been embarrassed. Salvini, who is the leader of the Italian far right, went to the Polish border a few days ago where the mayor of the local town shouted at him on camera and and waved a T shirt that he'd worn in Moscow, which which is a sort of pro Putin T shirt and said, you know, Mr Salvini, do you want to wear this when you're talking to the refugees. There is a feeling that these, you know, these pro Russian politicians who were very often taking money from or at least accepting kind of pr help from the Russians, or had interactions with the Russians, are part of the problem. They did have influence and a lot of societies, and the feeling that they are partly responsible um is now quite widespread. I mean, Nigel Farage in the UK is under attack, you know, Marine Lapin in France is under attack, so many many of them are now being seen as having been irresponsible. And of course these are the same politicians who say they hate liberal democracy and you know, have autocratic leanings and would destroy institutions if they if they came to power. Well, in fact, you're currently at Johns Hopkins University, UH teaching a course appropriately titled democracy. And I'm just curious, you know, with the Cold War having ended before most, if not all, of your students were even born, how do they view this war in Ukraine? What kind of questions do they ask you about? You know what it all means? Um, it's You're right, It's a fascinating moment. I was thinking about how shaped my worldview this war I think plus January the six is going to shape the world view of a lot of Americans. These will be the two big events of this era for for people who are just coming of age, and I think they do see it, you know, very much the way we've we've just discussed as a as a moment when a democracy is fighting back against an autocracy, suddenly issues that seemed very vague or hard to understand become black and white. I think it's also very important that this war kills a kind of myth that we had in the West, which was the myth of inevitability, that somehow liberal democracy is inevitable, that it will always be with us, that it will always win the battles, and that there's nothing in particular that we need to do in order to support it or keep it going. This was particularly damaging in the United States, where it seemed like, you know, we could just let the professional politicians go and do their jobs, none of us had to really participate in anything because our democracy was just fine. I think this this and as I say in January, the six are a moment when people see that that's not true, that there may have to be more public participation, that you might have to involve yourself in politics and ways that you didn't expect, just like the Ukrainians are right now. We're taking a quick break. Stay with us, you know, and I recently wrote an essay for The Atlantic where your work appears about how republicans in our country undermine democracy at home and that helps autocrats like Putin or jin Ping. You know, we're seeing this play out in real time, as you point out. In Europe, there has been a shaming of a lot of the political leaders who supported and praise Putin. Here in this country, you have followed how we've had our own leaders praising Putin as they call him an anti woke hero and a warrior in the culture wars. And the Russian government even broadcasts Tucker Carlson, who appears on Fox News because of what he says in support of Putin or casting doubt on those who are seeing with our own eyes what Putin is doing. How do Russian viewers actually get information and how do you think Russia views somebody like Tucker Carlson and the other Trump apologists, both in the US and in Europe. The role of the Trump apologists is truly interesting because, of course, for me, it evokes the role of left wing apologists for communism, you know, in the in the last century. And I think their behavior comes out of something similar their dislike of their own country, of the United States. The nature of modern America is so strong that they're looking for alternatives anywhere, even if those are autocratic alternatives, and they're willing to overlook the true nature of those autocratic states if that gives them a kind of stick with which they can beat their own country. And so the idea, first of all, that Putin is a Christian or that he represents some kind of white Christian um, you know, anti woke spirit. I mean, it's absurd on all kinds of levels. Very few Russians or Christians, almost none of them go to church, very few of them have ever read the Bible. You know. One of the features of this war has been Russian bombing of cathedrals and churches, you know, but of course the Russians themselves encourage it. I mean, I don't know exactly where Tucker gets his information, UM, but some of it is quite specific. He's made specific comments about, you know, things that the Ukrainians have done. That somebody is feeding him information about how he should describe the war and giving him ideas UM. And then of course that information is very very useful for the Putin regime to play that back on Russian television. UM. Tucker Carlson appears quite frequently, and it's you know, used as evidence that we have support in America. UM. And so he is literally a useful idiot. I mean, he is getting his information from someone with ties to Russia. I don't know who it is, and I don't want to speculate that information is then being reproduced. It is then useful to the Russian regime. So he's acting as a conduit for Russian propaganda, which is extremely useful to them. Um, it's it's a really ugly thing to see, you know. I I like a lot of people only knew about President Zelenski from Afar, but what we've seen has been truly inspirational. And I think but for him and his leadership, we might not have the unity and the commitment that we need to keep supporting Ukraine in this fight. Have you ever met him, an and and if so, can you give us some idea about how this former comedian and actor has grown into the principal defender of democracy and freedom in the world right now? Um, The first time I met Zelenski or saw Zelenski was not that long after he was elected. There was a conference, a sort of big event in Kiev. I was invited. He was speaking there and he when he spoke, he did a kind of performance. I mean, it's you know, there was some comedy routine. One of his comedy troops came and pretended to be him, and you know, then he stood up. You know, it was it was funny, It was very well done, and afterwards people said, well, that's I guess it's nice that the president of Ukraine is amusing, but you know, this is a country war with Russia. Maybe we need something more. And people were really worried by that Um and they didn't know how he would react in the case of a crisis. One of the really interesting things about him, though, is how he got elected. So he was in a television series that he wrote and produced called Servant of the People, in which he played an ordinary school teacher who accidentally becomes president Um. And it's it's a long story and the plot it's complicated, and you know, and but a lot of the the television series does is it makes fun of how Ukrainians are overrespectful of power. You know, once he was a sort of, you know, an ordinary guy. He becomes president. Suddenly people start genuflecting to him, and you know, he's mystified by that and so on. And I think one of the things that he's understood is that the way to reach people is to be an ordinary person, to have ordinary emotions. And in a country that's used to feeling distance and sort of fear from the state and from power, which they've had for you know, several hundred years. Really he has broken through and he you know, HiT's what he's wearing. He's wearing a T shirt, not not fatigues. He's not pretending to be a general. He's just an ordinary person who's fighting this war, like so many are. He uses the language of ordinary people. He doesn't talk in kind of pompous tones. Um. He uses his own phone to make the videos that he's showing to people, so they're sort of it's unprofessional. I mean some of that is orchestrated, but it's orchestrated with a desire to be authentic, and it works because it is authentic. Um. And so I think his the he's trying to inspire people with bravery by acting out bravery himself. This is what bravery looks like. Look here I am, here's my chief of staff, here's the head of the parliament, and we're all here. We're in Kiev. We're not going anywhere, you know, we're not leaving the country. That was his first big video, you know, the first or second night of the war, and I think that has been really transformational. I know that people in Ukraine now turn him on every night, you know, he now makes a nightly video and there's a kind of national However, people are now getting videos because you know, whether it's through a telegram channel or some other app but people are getting them, watching them, and they're inspirational. I would say only one thing though, which is that Ukraine has a long history of being a kind of grassroots up country rather than a leadership down country. And I do think that even if anything happened to him, that they would keep fighting. So, you know, it's it's a it's it's it's what you're watching is this kind of self organization, you know, this territory army that people all kinds of people are now joining who have no experience fighting in the past. That's not just because of him, it's also you know, he is he is learning from them as much as they learned from him. So I think they would they would be fighting even without him. And what about Russia. I know it's so difficult to get accurate factual information if you're in Russia, and we've seen a lot of protests, we've seen people being arrested. Latest numbers I saw were you know, in the you know, fifteen thousand plus area of people have been thrown in jail for protesting. I mean, it's it's ironic that in a time of so much technology about information being conveyed, we're having a harder time getting accurate information into Russia now than we did back in the Cold War, the Soviet times, when we had you know, radio free Europe, we had short wave, we had lots of other, you know, ways of getting information. How how do Russians get accurate information so that they have some sense of what Putin is doing? So that is an excellent question and a very very interesting one. I testified in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said exactly this that one of the things we should be thinking about doing now is hiring all of those Russian journalists and television producers who are fleeing Moscow and employing them to create a Russian satellite channel that could reach people, um a little bit better. The Russians are trying to cut off all access to the outside world, sort of app by app and station by station. All of the Russian journalists have now been expelled from Moscow who had any independent standing. I spoke yesterday actually to a friend of mine in Moscow who is she's sort of the last liberal journalist standing and she says she doesn't want to leave her book collection, which cash, but everyone she knows has gone. Everybody's leaving, and so you know, I really think it's the task now for our administration and for other European governments to figuring out what we're gonna do. Do we need Russian satellite station? As I discussed, do we need to be thinking about digital samise dot? Should there be people who are trying to organize community cations inside Russia through email chains or through other kinds of connections, Um, what is the best way to reach Russians? I mean there's a lot of creative thinking going on right now, you know, at the sort of lowest possible levels, as people try and figure out exactly this problem. But um, but it's not easy to solve. I mean, one almost wishes for short wave radio is back, because at least at least there was one channel, you know, on which it was possible to hear things. Well. In fact, I think I heard the BBC was going to dig out their old shortwave you know, the radio communications equipment to see if they could actually get into Russia. Well, and I just have to close by number one thanking you because honestly, you are such a clear and level headed source of insight and knowledge when it comes to this part of the world. But I also have to ask, as you look at the threats to our future, not just coming from Putin, but sadly sometimes coming from ourselves, given your understanding and appreciate creation of history, are you optimistic? So I am naturally pessimistic. I think anybody who spends their life studying Soviet history has you know, has some issues. But one of the conclusions I've recently come to um, and this is particularly true in our country, is that it's very irresponsible for someone like me to be pessimistic about our country and about the future of democracy, because really what happens tomorrow depends on choices that we make today. So nothing is inevitable. Liberal democracy is not inevitable, but also decline is not inevitable. Autocracy is not inevitable, And so I think we owe it, particularly to younger people, to continue to be optimistic. It's only by thinking about a better and more positive future and then figuring out how to get there that we will be able to achieve it. So I remain an optimist. I believe that people are good and that they want to create better societies, and that people instinctively understand what's justice and what's injustice. And you know, I do believe that if we try, and if we if we want it to happen, that Ukraine can win and liberal democracy can prevail. From your lips, my friend, I cannot thank you enough and apple Bomb, and I hope you wouldn't mind if I set up my own channel with you to stay in touch with you, because occasionally I do get a chance to, you know, kibbits with those who are making these literally life and death decisions for Ukrainians, for our future. And I so value your insight and I look forward to continuing the conversation. Thank you. It was a real pleasure to speak to you. Thank you so much. And Apple Bomb's newest book is called Twilight of Democracy The Seductive Lure of a Oraitarianism. I hope you will all pick it up and recommend it to your friends. There's a lot that sadly applies right here in our own country. We'll be right back now. I know our next guest pretty well. Mike McFall served as America's ambassador to Russia, starting when I was Secretary of State. Before that, he served on the National Security Council at the White House. He's a professor of international relations at Stanford University and also an international affairs analyst for NBC News. Hello, Mike, see you. Oh well, please call me Hillary my friend. I could call you ambassador, you could call me secretary. We sound very official. I think I do that. Well. It is so great to have on this podcast, Ambassador Mike McFall. And to get us started, I I want to set the stage for our listeners. Can you describe what our relationship with Russia was like when you and I joined the Obama administration in two thousand and nine and how it has evolved. Well, first, it's great to see you again. Um. So, when we came into the government, everybody needs to remember there was a different president. President Vieira was the president. Putin was the prime minister. Russia just invaded Georgia in August two thight, and US Russia relations were at a at that time, at its lowest point ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Um, the Bush administration had a pretty tepid response. I think it's fair to say, uh, they did not sanction anybody. They didn't send military assistance. You can think about all the things we're debating now they did not do. And we came in several months later under the banner of the Reset, as you know. Well uhm. But but I think it's been misunderstood what the reset was about. The reset was about trying to get some things done that we're good for the American people and good for our security interests. And you played a central role in that. Things like the New Start Treaty reducing you know, thirty percent of the nuclear weapons in the world, new supply routes for our soldiers in Afghanistan, uh sanctions on Iran the most comprehensive sanctions ever multilateral at that time. I add one more thing to that early period that I think is important for your listeners to understand, is that why we were doing all that cooperation, we were not checking our values at the door. You personally and in particular, I want to make make sure people understand that that us to say that when you traveled to Russia, you met with the government and med Vieta fin Putin, but then you also met with human rights activists and civil society leaders. When President Obama did that. He did the same two thousand nine, his his first trip there as president. He first day was government, second day civil society. That was our policy, right, dual track engagement. And by the way, when all that was happening in the mid VIETA f years, it was no big deal. You know. Obama had a roundtable with all the chief opposition leaders, so did you, and it was kind of no big deal. It was not it was not news. It's important to remember we were at least in a position where we were talking with and even negotiating with the then president of Russia. What happened? How did we get from there to here? In your expert opinion, two things changed, very consequential. One, Putin decided to run for re election to become president again. He thought, you know, mid vietnif was drinking too much reset kool aid. From his point of view, he's getting too soft with us. And then in between the time he announced that he was running, So he announces in September two thousand eleven, the elections in March two thousand twelve, and in between there was a parliamentary election and it was stolen kind of you know, falsified five kind of the normal levels. Just so you know, I remember sitting in the situation room. It's like, there's no big deal. There's just a normal Russian election under Vladimir Putin. But two things happen, and one of them was you were directly responsible for one. You issued a statement about those elections not being free and fair. I think you were in Vilnos at the time, if I'm not mistaken. I was actually at an os c E meeting, So that's right. You know, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and one of the goals of American to plomacy literally since post World War Two was to promote and protect free and fair elections exactly, And I remember it vividly. Just say, you know, Hillary, because I was at my son's football game in Maryland and trying to find a quiet space to speak to your eight at the time, Jake Sullivan, because I was the guy that cleared that statement for the White House on a Saturday, and your statement plus Russians going out onto the streets to protest that uh falsified election. Right first, five hundred and five thousand, and hundreds of thousands of people protesting. First time you've seen that kind of protesting in Russia since nine the year of the Soviet Union collapsed, and Putin put those two things together and he said, ah ha, there's a threat to my regime here, and it's Hillary Clinton's fault. It's the West fault. And I really think, you know, he's paranoid about democracy, right with with good reason, by the way, but that became the drama that leads to the events today because two years after those protests, there were major protests in Ukraine. By the way, I think you're in another meeting in Europe when Yanakovich was supposed to come sign an EU agreement and he got cold feet at the time, and he's, you know, because Putin put a lot of pressure on him. By that time. I was working in Moscow and I remember they gave him a big financial aid package to not sign that agreement. And Covi was that at that time, the president of Ukraine. So that for people who may not know right, right, and he was coming to and I want to say another meeting that you were at, if I'm not mistaken, Yeah, I was in Ukraine. I actually I remember I was. I was in Ukraine, and you know, there was such a sense of hope and optimism, particularly among young Ukrainians, and you know, their hopes were to move toward Europe. They wanted to be part of the European Union and that was a separate issue from NATO, that they wanted to be considered Europeans. Uh, They're in literally the largest landmass country other than Russia that is in Europe, and they wanted to look west right. Well, and that's exactly what happened. Janakovic did not sign that accession agreement with European unions and a journalists then turned parliamentary in his name is Mustafa got onto Facebook and said this is outrageous. We are European. He said, come to the streets, and eventually, uh, they came to the streets, and that was again for putin there. It is again mass mobilization. He doesn't believe that people can do this on their own. There's got to be the hand of the United States and the CIA. It then got violent. As you remember, by this time you were no longer Secretary of State, as I recalled, but that I left February one, right, right, So this had happened, you know, after Secretary Carrey was in place. But the mobilization again. That's what they called the Revolution of dignity. Janikovich fled and Putin decided, okay, here's the the hidden hand of the Americans again, and that's when he invaded Ukraine. The first time. Sees Crimea supported the separatists, but ever since he's been trying to undermine that democratic government that took over, ever since, through all kinds of different ways. And as he said the night before he invaded, I watched that speech. It was just rant all over the place. Took fifty eight minutes for him to make his argument um. And by the way, you know, as a professor, let me say, if you need fifty eight minutes to make your argument, you don't know what your argument is, um. But there were two seeds of it in there, and to this day, this is what it is about. He said, we're gonna destroy the Ukrainian army and we're gonna do denazification, which means to kill Mr Zelenski, to pipe out his government. So this is about him trying to roll back the Revolution of dignity from two thousand four. Mike, I want to I want to go back a little bit because I know you were born and raised in Montana. How did you become interested in Russia and become a Russian expert? Wow, we're going way back. Uh so yeah, I grew up in Montana, never been to California, let alone abroad, until as a seventeen year old kid, I flew to Stanford. I was an undergraduate at Stanford, but I got interested in Hillary in high school. I was on the high school debate team, and my junior year in Bozeman Senior High the topic was to improve US trade policy, and so my partner and I ran a case, as they're called in debate, to grant the Soviet Union most Favored Nation status. That was our case, by the way, something I later disagreed with, but at the time that's how I got interested. And when I showed up, you know, it was the fall of nineteen eight one, so President Reagan had just been elected. Uh he was talking about, you know, the Evil Empire, and it felt like a very scary time to me as a young kid. And so fall quarter of my freshman year I enrolled in two classes that really had a big impact on my life. First year Russian, which I then took you know for many years, and then you know, of course, on how nations deal with each other. And I was animated by an idea that that, you know, in different ways, has been a part of my thinking ever since. You know, I wanted to see the Soviets themselves. You know, I was wondering, well, what is this about the evil Empire? And I'm not sure I believe Ronald Reagan, and so I wanted to get to the Soviet Union. And so, you know, most kids at Stamford they go to London, Paris, Florence for their junior year abroad. At the end of my sophomore year, I went to Leninggrad. I went to Leningrad State University. And you gotta remember, like this is imagine that phone call to my mom. H you thought that California was a communist country, you know, and suddenly her sons going to you know, the evil Empire. But and you know, basically ever since that, that was how I got kind of interested in thinking about the place. That's really an interesting story because you've been evolving ever since, and you ended up being our ambassador to Russia. And I remember very well the challenges that you and your family faced, because I think, Mike, you also posed a real challenge, a real, in their view, threat to their mentality starting with Putin, but going on down, you wanted to live your life. Your kids were with you. Initially, you were engaged in the community, you were on social media, and then we started to get very troubling, you know, messages about how the government of Russia and that had to start with Putin was really making life hard for you. Can you talk a little bit about that, because I think again, people who are just for the first time maybe tuning in because Ukraine is so dramatic and so horrific, may not have at all the background that you certainly do about how we ended up where we are. Um So, remember we left out a few chapters of my history and I'll go through them quickly. But you know, my initial time in the Soviet Union, I was like, Oh, this place isn't so bad. I went back in eight five understanding Russian better, and I got deeper into the society, and then I came out a militant anti communist and a militant pro democrat. And then I lived in the Soviet Union. Um I was a fulbright scholar. You know, that's when there was mass mobilization, democratic movement, and I worked with a group that you probably know, the National Democratic Institute, and it was just a you just got to remember. It was such a euphoric moment. I remember because you know, the Berlin Wall fell in nineteen eighty nine and then the years you're describing um led to the fall of the Soviet Union. So at that period, groups like NDI and and you know, I then opened the office in Moscow, the National Democratic Institute funded by the United States government, actually yes, and it's affiliated with the Democratic Party, and we were there to help do political party development. But we were not We were there at the invitation of the government. I think that's the part that people get wrong. They wanted us there, and you know, I was a rock star. We were these young, idealistic people and got to know, you know, people that later became the opposition to Putin when I showed up two decades later. And I tell you that piece because Putin knows that. But fast forward to when I showed up as ambassador. You know, before I had gotten there, these massive protests had been taking place, and Putin went out of his way to criticize you personally. He said that you had sent a signal to those protesters, and so I arrived right in the in the as that was all happening. And you know, I just I remember my last meeting with you before I left. You told me three things, he said, be strong, don't forget about our values. And you are the person that told me to get on Twitter. I don't know if you remember that, but you said, you said, And I'm still on Twitter, by the way, and it's an important platform for me. But but your argument was, we gotta reach out to Russian society, we gotta engage with them. So I did that, but the conditions and change, right. It was one thing to meet the opposition when mid Vietnef was president, when we traveled together, Um, you probably don't remember, but one of the times we traveled together, like I want to say, two thousand and ten or so, I was actually meeting with a group of opposition leaders in the hotel room and you walked by, and I grabbed your eye and you came over and you you you did a vodka shot with them all. One of them. One of them is a guy named Boris and himself who who five years later was assassinated. But you made a huge impression on them. And it was you know, but it wasn't dangerous then, you know that that was a different era. By the time I showed up as ambassador, Putin was completely you know, nervous about his regime. So they used me as a target of you know, to say that I was sent by you and Obama to go orchestrate the revolution and so that that was my faith. Yeah. No, I mean, his his paranoia just seemed to grow and grow. And you know, there's been a lot of armchair psychologists trying to figure out what's happened to Putin? Why Putin is so aggressive and really risk taking right now? Does he have some health issues physical mental? Some people who said he looks puffy, looks like he's taking steroids. I mean, do you have any um, I don't know about insight, maybe too you know, too much to ask for, but any observations about what's going on with him personally. So a couple of things, and it's speculation, of course, right. But one remember, even when I was ambassador, we were writing lots of cables back explaining how isolated he was. Back then. That's eight years ago, right, Uh, you know, when when you came out to see him as Secretary of State. We had to drive out this compound. Right. We didn't meet in the Kremlin. That's because because he always met all of his people out in his country state, and he would sit out there, this is several years ago, barely meet with his advisers, not meet with many foreigners. It was a major deal that he would meet with you. Very few leaders in the world even back then, had FaceTime with him. And he's been in power for twenty two years, right, So when you get to be in power that long, you don't think that anybody can tell you anything. And COVID added to his isolation. Uh, he doesn't get very good information. He just gets this secret information from the KGB guys, and it's all distorted about Ukraine. You know, he's already removed some of his intelligence generals because because he got bad information about how the Ukrainians were going to receive them. So I think he's been very isolated for a long time, has been starting to believe his own propaganda. And then you know, has this other piece that I think is important for people to understand. He thinks of himself as a great you know, Catherine the Great, Peter the Great Restorer of the Russian Empire, wants to bring the Slavic people's together, as he explained before he invaded Ukraine, and fundamentally doesn't understand Ukrainians like he just doesn't understand they aren't just people with an accent but basically Russians, right, that's what he thinks. Um. And he drastically miscalculated in thinking that this was going to be a cake walk. And you can see he's he's gradually getting more and more angry, saying more and more crazy things, talking about the internal they call it the fifth column, right, the people inside Russia. That's an all communists sort of Leninist Stalinist term, is exactly it is. That was scary, especially because I think of, you know, my Russian friends who he's thinking of, um, and guys like Mr Novaldy, who's you know, in jail right now and from jail calling on Russia to protest this horrible war. So he feels like he's getting more and more unhinged. Um. I don't think he's suicidal. So I think we should be you know, we need to be firm and not you know, these threats he's making about nuclear weapons. We we should make sure that they haven't changed their policy on that. But we should also not overreact to his threats. I think at times, you know, he says, well, if you if we send these planes, these MiG twenty nine, he'll escalate. Well, what does that mean? He's going to escalate? Like, I think we need to be a little stronger and more confident. I agree with that. So I agree with that. Yeah, No, I mean, in fact, that's what I wanted to ask you. I think that the Biden administration um and like like you, I've I've talked to some of the people in it. Many of them were in the Obama administration, even the Klinton administration. So more for you, they're they're all I think about it, They all for you. Yeah, and they're they're full that we know and respect. And I thought that the initial phases of their reactions were really very strong, and I was impressed by their willingness to release intelligence in order to undercut what was clearly a plan of Putin's for a false flag operation to make it seem like somehow the Ukrainians were attacking Russians and therefore he had to go in and protect the Russians. So I do think that the accelerated pace of providing lethal weaponry to Ukraine is really important. But what do you think, Uh, Mike, again, it's just you and me kind of you know, throwing stuff up on the wall. See what we'll stick. Um, what should the US and NATO be doing in the days and weeks and months ahead? And second part of that, have you been surprised at how strongly, Um, the Ukrainians have defended themselves. Well, let's let's lilip around. Let's start with the Ukrainians and then what we should do to help them. So I'm it's been amazing, right. I mean the institute I run out here at Stanford, Hillary, we actually have been training activists in Ukraine starting in two thousand five. We had our first fellow from there from Ukraine. We're up to we had now have three hundred a lums throughout Ukraine. So people think of me as a Russia guy. But um, you know, I wrote my first book about Ukraine in two thousand and six, and because of that network, I've been in touch with Ukrainians throughout this entire war. UM. I hosted presidents a Lensky here at Stanford last September, the only place he spoke publicly. Is first Ukrainian president to come to California, so I got to know him. You know, we had a great day together, and he's a very engaging guy, and he's funny and you know, but nobody knew how he would respond in this moment. Right. He's a new guy to politics, and I just think he's a heroic figure. I spoke to him just fourth five days ago. By chance. I was hitting the Skype button to talk to one of our alums who works for him, his name Serge, and the screen came on just like we're talking, and there was Zelensky and his bunker and he said, Mike, you look just like, yeah, you looked what I was in California. I said, Mr President, you don't, uh, you know, he's got his scraggly beard and his T shirt. Um. But Hillary, let me tell you honestly, that was not by accident. I was speaking to two members of Congress just four hours later, and that shows you some of their savvy of their public communications strategy. They knew that, and they knew twenty minute conversation with Zelenski before I went to join Speaker Pelosi would have an effect on what I said, and it did so the battlefield, they're doing heroic work on the battlefield. I also think in terms of public communications, the speech he gave to Congress brilliant, and that's why, in my view, we should do everything we can do to help them win. And by win, I mean to fight the Russians to a stalemate, so they have to negotiate. And what I would say on the strategy so far, I'd say three of the four things they've done really well, uh and they have to keep doing it. So strengthening NATO, moving our forces and material to our frontline states great A plus military assistance historic levels. We've never done something as big. I always wanted more. I think they should have sent those big twenty nine for instance, and they should have done that quietly, not in the public back and forth, but but but generally that I support that. And the sanctions. Very impressed with what they've done on sanctions, that's been terrific. But I would say two things. One the communications inside Russia we're not doing as well as we need to. We need to get mothers of those soldiers to understand what's going on to Ukraine so that when the next draft date comes up, and it's coming up I think April one. They say, you know, I don't want to give my kid to this, this horrible war. And that's hard. I don't want to trivialize how hard that is, because they're closing down that space. But we got to get more creative on that. And as you know, the professor that I am, when I talk to my our colleagues in the government, I say, okay, you've got straight a's right now. But that was just the first midterm. We got ways to go here, folks. And um, you know you put six hundred oligarcs on the sanctions list, Well there's a list of six thousand, um, and so you've gotta keep at it, and especially on the weapons and and sanctions. It's not sufficient just to hold. You've got to keep ratcheting up the pressure on the economy and keep giving them the weapons to defend themselves. Oh. I completely agree with that, Mike. Um. Specifically, what more could be and should be done in terms of getting information into Russia. We know, you know the Kremlin is trying to block any kind of channels, but there's so much I mean, this is not you know fifty, there's lots of ways of getting information in so specifically, what would you advise not just the American government, but all the NATO governments, any allied government and and individuals as well as corporations. Yes, well, one thing we should do immediately is to help too. In particular, I can be very specific. TV Rain and Echo musk V the radio station. By the way, you were on Echo Musky. I remember, I remember we went to the studio. I remember they have your photo on the wall, just so you know. After that, so when I would go there as ambassador, I would walk by it and that, you know, just to for people who don't know, this is the number one radio multimedia companies started in this iconic Echo Muscovy. I mean everybody listens to millions of listeners throughout the country. They just were shut down a couple of weeks ago, and TV Rain is the last independent TV program. Their reconst tuting themselves outside of the country. And we should support them and they'll figure out through VPNs and you know, various ways to how to penetrate their cyber wall. It's not as good as the Chinese, they're not. They don't have that in place. UM even more creatively, text messaging is a very important information push. We know that from our elections, right. Um, opposition knows that inside Russia we're not doing enough in terms of that kind of messaging. And that's that's complicated, and you know who does it and what messaging. But I think in this moment, that's another place that we we want to be present. You know, Arnold Schwarzenegger did this video a few days ago, and you know he's very popular in Russia. That's what I've heard, and the video was really power. You've seen it, Yeah, I just saw it. I saw I saw it on Twitter. Yeah, well there you go. Umuh. And by the way, Twitter's blocked, but there's still through VPNs those all those platforms book on tact Day their Facebook like platform. I worry about YouTube. By the way, YouTube is a very important platform inside Russia. I predict that will be the next one that that Putin goes after. But back to Arnold like that, he's an iconic figure in Russia, so for him to do that, pieces of that interview will eventually show up on people's smartphones. Um, And we gotta think of other ways to do kind of you know, creative things like that. One other thing that's happening. For instance, just to give you a flavor of what Ukrainians and Russian opposition folks are doing. They're saying, go on to restaurant websites and when you give reviews, start writing, stop the war, right, So the little things like that, just you gotta you gotta be full in. That's the part I think we need to do more work on. Well, you pass that on, I'll pass it and we'll see if we can get you know, more of a reaction. We'll be back right after this quick break. Can you really describe for Americans why we have so much at stake in what's going on in Ukraine? Assuming that Ukraine continues this heroic resistance we're facing, you know, weeks maybe months of attacks and stalemates and everything that goes with it, continuing threats from Putin? Why should Americans keep caring? Why should they be willing to sacrifice whether it's increasing gas prices or other economic blowback from these very comprehensive sanctions. Yeah, great question and a hard one to answer. But let me frame it the way I think about it. This is a fight between autocrats and democrats. Uh, it is a fight of ideas as we're talking about before. Putin was never was never really threatened by NATO expansion. He was threatened by democratic expansion, and he always got h you know, it was always democratic expansion led to him complaining about NATO. So this is a fight about that. And let me just paint two scenarios. If Zelenski wins and and there's a stalemate and Putin is repelled, that has lots of important positive consequences from American national security interests. Right. First of all, our NATO allies will be less nervous than they are today because he'll be pushed back. Our allies and friends in Asia will feel more secure. Uh, Shijing Ping better think twice about invading Taiwan. Looking at what a fiasco what he thought was the third most powerful army in the in the world, one that he cooperates with, one that they have a lot of weapons systems together, right Uh, And out look at how morally they're performing in Ukraine. And if they lose there, that's good for deterring China from invading Taiwan. And by the way, if the sanctions help to keep the pressure on the economy, she's better thing twice about invading and facing those sanctions. That's a good thing, but the opposite is also true. If Putin wins and those fighting for democracy lose inside Ukraine, that has negative consequences all around the world as well. Our NATO allies will need more reassurance, and that means more military spending from US to help make sure that Putin doesn't attack them. Our allies in the Middle East will be nervous, uh and start hedging their bets. You know, maybe we need to work with the Russians because we can't. These Americans are not so reliable. I'm thinking of Israel first and foremost, and out in Asia the same thing, like um, you know, those are fence sitters. Will think, well, maybe we better lean more towards the Chinese because the Americans didn't prevail. So I think the consequences actually are much bigger than just in Ukraine. Winning has a very positive consequence in terms of how other people will deal with us in the future. Well, that's very well said, and I agree completely and the and the only additional point I would make is that I think it's also good for our own democracy here at home because the apologists and frankly, shall we say, fellow travelers of a nationalistic, even violent opposition as we saw in January six in our own country will have to think twice. Their base will be rattled and uh, those who promote undermining our institutions, ignoring the rule of law, trying to undermine our elections, everything that we know, unfortunately is part of the agenda of the opposition in America. I think that too will be you know, shape absolutely. I mean, don't forget. I don't need to tell you, but maybe your listeners have forgotten. Putin's been trying to undermine democracy for a long long time, including our own democracy, including undermining you personally during our elections. For a reason. I mean, you know, small D democratic ideas, small L liberal ideas are a threat to him, and leaders around the world, including you, that support those are threats to him. And for years he's been cultivating ties with I call it the illiberal international rights populist nationalist leaders you know, Urban and Hungary, Salibanian, Italy, Lepin and France Farage in the UK and Mr Trump and his you know, the people around him, the Steve Bannons of the world. They have been He's been making progress. I think the good news out of this horrible crisis is it's like you just said, it's a lot harder to play those games and line up with Putin, But that's all the more important if he if he wins victorious, all those kind of groups will now you know, start sprouting again and say, well he's evil, but you know he's a strong leader. We can't we can't let them go back to that we've got. That's why Putin has to lose in Ukraine. And I guess the final thing I would ask you, Mike, is does does Putin and his regime survived this win or lose? So? Um? You know, I'm a political scientist, and I would say we're not very good at predicting the future. Um. I also worked five years in the government. I'd said, the CIA is not very good at it either. Just so so we they didn't get the Green Revolution in Iran, right, or the Arab spring rights, or the Russian protests are Ukraine. But so, but with that humble caveat, let me let me say two things I know I'm very certain of one. I'm absolutely sure that the Ukrainians eventually will win. I don't know when they were gonna win but Putin doesn't have the army to occupy this country, the largest country in Europe forty million people. Stalin had millions in the Red Army when he put his puppet regimes in place after forty five. Putin does not have that capability, and he doesn't have the ideas. Stalin was repelling real fascists, and when he liberated countries, he said he could make the argument, we're building a new society communists, and he attracted just enough lackeys to help him build those places. Putin doesn't have that. So Ukrainians will fight door by door with guns, acts of non violence, civic resistance. There's no doubt on my mind. Eventually though, they will repel putin soldiers. I just don't know when that should be. We should hasten that. But you asked a different question, yes, about Russia, And here's the way I think about it. It reminds me of the bresne era. You know, Bresnef was in power for almost twenty years, one of the longest serving general secretaries in the early phases, you know, he was he was kind of he did okay in the sixties, and then the seventies came along, and he went on this run victories where communist regimes, we're taking over the world, right, so Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and then Angola and Mozambique in Africa, Nicaragua, even in our hemisphere. That was seventy nine and so he had like five wins. And by the way, Hillary, we kind of looked like we did recently, right, We were divided amongst ourselves, lots of you know, civil rights movement, anti war movement, Nixon. These were times where we didn't look like we were so strong ourselves, right, So a lot of parallels. And then bres overreached. He invaded Afghanistan and he thought it was gonna be a k k walk, you know, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan. We're just gonna add one more stand to They called it the Sixteenth Republic, and we all know how that ended. It was a disaster for the Soviet Union. And it was one, not the only factor, but it was one of the factors. That was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. Took a decade, but but it it helped unravel things. And I think this is the beginning of the end of of Putinism. Even if Putin survives in power, which he may very well do, it's a pretty horrific dictatorship. But he's lots the elites, Hillary, I gotta tell you, like, I'm in touch with Russians all the time, including people that were kind of pro Putin. Right, he violated the contract, which was I'll be your dictator in return for a stable economy. Well that's over now, and I just think it will eventually, you know, maybe it'll take one more leader that won't have the authority. But I do think this is the beginning of the end. I just don't know how long that process will be. But it's very hard for me to imagine a Putin like figure in power in Russia twenty years from now. I think that's really unlikely. So that's a sliver of good news. We just don't know when that good news gets delivered. Yeah, no, And we just have to keep our nerve and be patient and be smart about, you know, the strategies we employ and absolutely stay the course. Well, I can't tell you what a delight it is for me to have this time to talk with you, Mike, and I really look to you for you know, interpretation and guidance about how we can stay the course. And thank you so much for you know, sharing this time with me and our listeners, really enjoying Hillary. Let's do it again sometime. Thank you. Bye. Mike mcfall's most recent book is From Cold War to Hot Peace, an American Ambassador in Putin's Russia. You can also follow him like I do on Twitter at McFall. Recent events have proven what we know to be true. We are all connected, that what happens abroad matters here at home, and that an attack on democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere. So as we stand with the people of Ukraine in the difficult weeks and probably months ahead, it's also important that we stand with one another and stand up for our democracy right here at home. Before I go, as a reminder, I'll be answering your questions on a future episode of You and Me both with a special guest. Maybe you've got more questions about what's going on with Ukraine and Russia, or what's happening with attacks on our democracy right here in America, or maybe there's something more personal or lighthearted that you want to ask me. No matter what your questions might be, right to You and Me Both pod at gmail dot com, or you can leave a voice message at two oh two seven eight oh seven five one five and who knows, I might just answer your question on the show You and Me Both is brought to you by I Heart Radio. We're produced by Julie Subran, Kathleen Russo and Rob Russo, with help from Kuma Aberdeen, Oscar Flores, Lindsay Hoffman, Brianna Johnson, Nick Merrill, Laura Olan, Lona Velmorrow and Benita Zaman. Our engineer is Zack McNeice and original music is by Forrest Gray. If you like You and Me Both, please tell someone else about it. And if you're not already a subscriber, what are you waiting for? You can subscribe to You and Me Both on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening, take care of yourself and each other, and we'll be back next week. H