HistorySociety & Culture

Thinking about...

Timothy Snyder

The words we need for the politics of today.

snyder.substack.com

Play

Open in

31 episodes
Avg 24 min
English

Episodes 31

Newest Oldest Longest

All20 Unplayed20 In progress0 Played0

Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.

Monday · 7 min
Basic Political Wisdom (Kharkiv Meditations, 10/10)
At night last month in Kharkiv, Ukraine, I was moved to record a cycle of thoughts. This is the final one: on basic political wisdom. By that I mean nothing more than a few answers to questions that I get asked a lot, on issues where historical examples, consensus in political science, and experience of recent elections give me some confidence in the answers. This is the video that is most directly relevant to the US midterms; but it also flows naturally from the larger concerns of the previous nine meditations, which were published here in the last couple of days and in September. Please feel free to share this one and all of the others! A last word: thanks to friends in Ukraine who help me to get around and therefore to think. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
Sunday · 6 min
Hydrocarbons (Kharkiv Meditations, 9/10)
I had an excellent visit to Kharkiv last month, during which I found myself with some free time by myself at night. With the war in the background, or rather in the foreground, I used the opportunity to record the thoughts that arose in that special setting. In this recording, the next to last, the topic is the harm done to us and our future by our dependence on oil and gas. In a war where the aggressor is entirely dependent upon hydrocarbon revenue, it is a hard reality to overlook. The final Kharkiv Meditation, on political common sense, or basic political wisdom, will be released tomorrow, October 5th. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
Saturday · 5 min
The Richness of Language (Kharkiv Meditations, 8/10)
Last month I had some time at night in Kharkiv to record a few thoughts. One of the prompts was the regularity of Russian attacks; the other was a certain logic that led from one topic to the next. This one is about our capacities as speakers of languages. It follows naturally from earlier meditations on words and from the previous one on AI. I was also staying in the apartment of a very accomplished linguist, and reading his essays. This is the eighth of ten of these Kharkiv Meditations; the last two will appear on October 4 and 5, so tomorrow and the day after. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
Friday · 51 min
Thinking Live with Min Jin Lee about American Hagwon
A great novel is here and I had the pleasure of speaking to its author. Please have a listen, and please read the book: American Hagwon. It brings the great themes of the last fin-de-siècle, astonishingly lively and plausible characters, and an exemplary combination of moral sensitivity and wordly realism. My enthusiasm will come through in the conversation, as will some of Min’s humor and wisdom. Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. Please subscribe. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 30 · 52 min
Disagreement and Persuasion with Jessica Tarlov
Dear Thinkers, Tim recently sat down with Fox News commentator and pollster Jessica Tarlov for a nearly hour-long conversation, split between the state of the midterms and Jessica’s new book, I Disagree: Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends. Below are just some of the topics they touched on: Are we headed for free and fair elections? Jessica opened by naming her worry directly: after Trump aired a taxpayer-funded campaign ad during college football and NFL broadcasts, talk of seizing voting machines, and open interest in a third term, how confident can we be in 2026 and 2028? Tim stressed that unfair elections don’t mean giving up; they mean fighting harder, as Hungary’s opposition did against Orbán even under worse conditions. He argued that real resistance requires a broad coalition, not just one party, and that Trump’s aggressiveness reflects weakness (terrible poll numbers, no real public support) rather than strength. Corruption vs. affordability. Jessica raised a tension inside the opposition: should Democrats lead with investigations, or with kitchen-table issues like gas prices and healthcare? Tim argued this is a false choice. Hungary’s opposition won by fusing the two, showing voters that their daily struggles and systemic corruption were the same story. Jessica pointed to John Ossoff as a model for blending both. Tim added that democracy can’t be sold as a return to the status quo, since most people didn’t like the status quo either; it has to be framed as something new and forward-looking. A world moving on without the U.S. Jessica raised Canada as an example of allies adapting without expecting normalcy to return. Tim reframed the picture: it’s not that Canada is moving on without the U.S., it’s that the “U.S.” as a government with a coherent national interest doesn’t currently exist in the way it once did. His hope is that if allies like Canada, the UK, the EU, and Ukraine hold their democracies together while the U.S. goes through this period, there will be working models to learn from later. From politics to Jessica’s new book. The conversation turned to I Disagree, which Jessica described as a practical guide to arguing with people you disagree with without writing them off. She argued that the American left has often ceded hard conversations across ideological lines, and that reaching people means finding shared values first rather than leading with disagreement. Tim connected this to the corrosive effect of algorithmic media, noting that U.S. social media and AI are less regulated, and more damaging, than in most other countries, and that getting people back into human contact and real-world institutions (schools, hospitals, civic life) is itself a democratic act. They closed by agreeing that dialogue alone won’t change the underlying conditions. Real change requires decisive electoral outcomes. Tim noted that with the wealth and technology available, a much better country is possible, and that the current mood of universal pessimism is itself a tactic borrowed from Putin’s playbook: convince people nothing works anywhere, so nothing seems worth fighting for. I hope you’ll watch, enjoy the conversation, and share it with anyone who might be interested. There is a lot to think about here, and I think you’ll learn a great deal from Jessica and Tim’s exchange. FYI: we’ve got a few more Substack conversations this week, including an exciting conversation with Min Jin Lee tomorrow about her new novel American Hagwon (12pm ET); Talking Feds with Harry Litman (11am ET on Friday) Rep. Jake Auchincloss (2:15pm ET on Friday). See you all soon, Victor Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 29 · 36 min
Trump, Power, What Comes Next with Robert Reich
Dear Thinkers, Tim just finished speaking with Robert Reich as a guest on his Substack for a wide-ranging conversation about power, corruption, and what history can tell us about where America goes from here. Below are just some of the things they touched on (watch the full video above for event more): * Superpower suicide. Bob opened by asking Tim to define the term he coined at the Council on Foreign Relations. Tim explained that conventional language about “national interest” and “state calculations” no longer captures what’s happening under Trump. The country is rapidly deflating its own power, both immediately, by torching alliances and losing wars, and over the long term, by hollowing out the economy, social mobility, and the research and educational base that power actually rests on. * Why the second term is worse than the first. Bob pressed on why the unraveling has accelerated. Tim pointed to a chain of lessons Trump has absorbed: he was reelected despite attempting a coup, he was never prosecuted for it, and the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling reinforced the sense that he is above the law. Layered on top of that is a Congress that has abandoned its constitutional function and instead acts as a public-relations arm of the executive, all accelerated by the corrosive role of money in politics. * Would a Democratic Congress matter? Tim argued yes, in two ways. First, Trump’s political brand depends entirely on projecting strength, an image that plays only within U.S. borders and, Tim said, is not shared by the rest of the world. That image can absorb some bad news, but not an unbroken string of it: a lost war in Iran plus a midterm drubbing could crack it. Second, and more conditionally, it matters what Democrats actually do with power. Tim urged that they announce anti-corruption and redistribution legislation right away, even knowing Trump would veto it, simply to stake out the position before public anger curdles back into “everyone is corrupt anyway” cynicism. * Can tyranny’s end lead somewhere better? Bob asked, drawing on Orbán, Putin, Netanyahu, and history’s other strongmen, whether publics actually rebuild strong institutions after a tyrant falls, or whether cynicism wins out. Tim’s answer leaned on agency rather than inevitability: the U.S. has the wealth and technology to give people much better lives, but only if leaders name the current moment as the disaster it is and offer a genuinely forward-looking vision, rather than a promise to return to an idealized past. * The money problem. Bob noted the flood of AI, crypto, and Wall Street money backing Republicans, the Citizens United landscape, and the reality that some Democrats are themselves dependent on big donors. Tim argued that separating money from votes is basic to democracy, and if they can’t move on it, Trump (or a successor) will simply out-corrupt them more charismatically, the same move Putin made in Russia two decades ago. Both agreed the real arguments to reclaim are patriotism, freedom, and humanity, currently deployed to protect wealth and “superintelligence” rather than people. * Power beyond the ballot. Bob offered a note of optimism: the second Trump term has exposed the tech-oligarch structure of power more nakedly than ever, fueling public backlash against the “new robber barons.” Tim agreed, adding that power in November won’t just be lawsuits and suits and ties; it will also be protests, labor, and civil society. Beating Trump requires the Democratic Party, he said, but also something bigger than it. They closed on a shared diagnosis: Trump is less a cause than a consequence of decades of concentrated wealth and power, and the real test isn’t just winning in November, but what vision fills the vacuum afterward. I hope you’ll watch, enjoy the conversation, and share it with anyone who might be interested. There is a lot here to think about, and I think you’ll learn a great deal from Tim and Robert’s exchange. Thanks, as ever, for being part of this community of thinkers. As a note for upcoming Substack Lives this week: On Thursday, Tim will host Min Jin Lee (12:30pm ET) to talk about her new novel American Hagwan. On Friday, Tim will speak with U.S. Congressman Jake Auchincloss on Friday (2pm ET). Hope you will tune in! Until next time,Victor This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 28 · 43 min
Regime Change and Corruption with Anne Applebaum
Dear Thinkers, We live in trying and testing times, with a lot of noise and information being hurled, which is why there is no better time than a clarifying and thoughtful conversation with historian and journalist Anne Applebaum (Anne Applebaum), built around her September 14 Atlantic article, “MAGA Is Making the World Safe for Corruption.” Tim and Anne had an extremely enlightening conversation that focused on a question Anne wrote about in her article: What does it mean to say the United States is undergoing a genuine regime change, and what does that change look like when it is exported abroad? Tim opened by asking whether the article was really describing regime change at home, with a state refreshed by elections and guided by some notion of national interest giving way to overlapping oligarchical and ideological clans. Anne described a coalition of actors who have never before controlled the federal government: those bent on destroying the administrative state, Christian nationalists, white supremacists, and tech and crypto oligarchs. While they have different agendas, they share one project, which she called a revolution. Below are some high-level themes that emerged during the conversation (which is worth watching in its entirety above): * Extraction as the organizing idea. Tim argued that these clans treat the U.S. as a zone of extraction, and that the same logic naturally extends to every other country. Anne agreed, noting that for oil, gas, mining, crypto, and tech interests, foreign states are simply obstacles: the EU as a regulator, Brazil as a government that might restrict a social media platform. Anne also pointed out that foreign policy is increasingly run by businessmen with personal ties to Trump rather than by diplomats bound by ethics rules. * Canada as a case study. Anne laid out a coordinated pattern when it comes to the U.S. government’s posture toward Canada: constant demeaning of Canadian sovereignty, MAGA influencers whose business model runs on outrage, open encouragement of Alberta separatism, and punitive tariffs that make little sense for Americans. She likened the two-track approach, normal diplomacy alongside support for movements that undermine a country’s sovereignty, to Bolshevik foreign policy. * Who resists, and why they’re resented. Both Tim and Anne noted that the Bolsheviks didn’t think the state was real, and neither do today’s American clans. Historically, the people who resisted were often defenders of unglamorous ideas: constitutions, states, the rule of law. Canada’s Mark Carney may be modeling a response by doubling down on sovereignty and building ties with Australia, Ukraine, and the EU. Tim suggested that those who have sold out their own country come to resent leaders like Carney and Zelensky who haven’t, much as Putin resents Zelensky. * Civilizations, not countries. Anne noted that the more sophisticated figures in the administration talk about a world divided into civilizational spheres of influence, where a dominant power imposes its will on its neighbors. Tim connected this to Putin’s turn toward “civilization” language around 2011-2012, which was used to deny the Russia-Ukraine border. When you believe in civilizations, Tim observed, you stop believing in states. Tim closed by asking what a dramatic midterm victory might make possible. Anne cautioned that even a big win would be only one step, not the end of the story. Her top hope is that Congress would start playing its constitutional role: using the power of the purse, asking hard questions about State Department activities abroad, and launching a serious national conversation about regulating tech and AI. Tim added that Congress could also run investigations that change the atmosphere and help Americans see what is happening. As you can tell, there was a lot to this conversation — and I hope you’ll watch, enjoy the conversation, and share it with anyone who might be interested. There is a lot here to think about, and I think you’ll learn a great deal from Anne and Tim’s exchange. And, as Tim noted at the end, take some time and read Anne’s work. You’ll be better and smarter off for it. Thanks, as ever, for being part of this community of thinkers. FYI: Tim is doing several Substack Lives this week — both as a guest and as a host. Here is the week so far if you want to add any to your calendar. Later today (9/28), Tim will host Jessica Tarlov (12:30pm ET) and he will join the great Sharon McMahon (1:45pm ET) on her Substack. Tomorrow, Tim will be in conversation with Robert Reich (1pm ET). Then, on Thursday, Tim will host Min Jin Lee (12:30pm ET) to talk about her new novel American Hagwan. To end the week, Tim will speak with U.S. Congressman Jake Auchincloss on Friday (2pm ET) Hope you’ll tune in! Victor Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 27 · 5 min
AI, War, and Dignity (Kharkiv Meditations, 7/10)
Given the air raids and such, I had some time at night in Kharkiv to do some thinking out loud. This is the seventh of ten videos that I recorded. There is a logical progression to these ten short meditations; by this point I was thinking about AI, which I suppose was slightly prompted by the tech in jet-propelled Russian drones and other Russian arms, but more generally appropriate after meditations on human ethical concepts. I have some US media coming up on this channel and elsewhere this week, so the remaining three Kharkiv Meditations (on language, hydrocarbons, and political common sense) will be released on October 3, 4, and 5. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 26 · 4 min
On Fascism (Kharkiv Meditations, 6/10)
While in Kharkiv I found myself meditation on some basic issues at night; the prompts came from the war itself, but the time awake lent itself to the effort of connecting daily experience to bigger political concepts. Fascism, the topic of this recording, came to mind at night in Kharkiv for obvious reasons, not least the geographical proximity to fascist Russia, and the wild violence of Russia’s war of aggression. There are four videos remaining after this one: the next two, on AI and on human language, will be released tomorrow and the day after. The final three meditations will be released October 3, 4, and 5 (in between there will be more contemporary material on US politics.). I hope that these meditations are useful or fruitful for you. Please share them if they are. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 25 · 4 min
Freedom (Kharkiv Meditations, 5/10)
Wherever I am, I try to write in the morning; staying in Kharkiv, visiting friends and soldiers during the day, I found it most convenient to instead record a few things at night. The setting was an evocative one: a city that functions despite war and war crimes; the apartment of an interesting Ukrainian intellectual; the timely stimulus of the air raid siren. This is the fifth of ten video meditations I recorded; it is about the meaning of freedom. The next one, on fascism, will be released tomorrow. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 24 · 3 min
One Good Thing (Kharkiv Meditations 4/10)
This is the fourth of the ten video meditations I recorded at night in Kharkiv, in northeastern Ukraine, near the border with Russia. This one is about a very simple idea; to believe in only one thing is to come very close to believing in nothing. It is an idea prompted by an essay written by George Shevelov about faith in communism; but it has much larger implications than that. Belief in only one good thing dulls us to the other good things, and puts us at risk that a loss of faith in one thing means a loss of faith in others. And so zealotry and nihilism are closer than they appear. There will be six more of these videos: three to be released in the next three days, and then three more in early October. (In between, from September 28 to October 2, I will be using this platform and others for some discussions of contemporary US politics.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 23 · 5 min
Moral Language (Kharkiv Meditations, 3/10)
This is the third of the ten video meditations I recorded in Kharkiv, in northeastern Ukraine, close to the Russian border. The first couple were about courage and cowardice, which led me to the importance of moral categories in general. Is there anything more objective about terms like “interests” and “calculations” than there is about, say, “greed” and “sadism”? Or are we perhaps hiding reality from ourselves by the narrowness of our preferred vocabulary? The next video meditation (the problem of believing in only one big thing) will be released tomorrow, and the one after that (on freedom) the following day. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 22 · 3 min
Small Courage (Kharkiv Meditations, 2/10)
This is the second of the ten video meditations I recorded at night not long ago in Kharkiv, Ukraine. They are thoughts that came to mind in a place which has been under constant attack by missiles and drones for more than four years. The topic this time is small acts of courage, and idea which came to me from observation of people who are effective during war and in resistance. It’s a phrase that works better in other languages, maybe; the idea is not to think of courage as something that is only epic of filmic and therefore out of reach, but as something that usually humble and, at meaningful moments, within our grasp. The next several of these Kharkiv Meditations will be released one per day. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
September 21 · 2 min
On Cowardice (Kharkiv Meditations 1/10)
This is the first of ten video meditations I recorded at night in Kharkiv, a frontline city in northeastern Ukraine. They concern matters that came to mind during the general setting of a long and terrible war; they were inspired though by the particularities of daily life in Kharkiv, which is less than a minute away from Russia by missile. The topic of this first one is “cowardice,” in particular that of people who kill others whom they never see and for no reason; this led me on to thoughts about courage, moral language, and freedom. These next few will be released one per day in coming days. If I were at all good at this sort of thing I would have thought to bring a light and a microphone; I hope that the spontaneity of these meditations makes up for my technical limitations. Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. Please subscribe and share. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
August 11 · 34 min
On National Interest, Power, and Ethics with Susan Rice
Dear Thinkers, Hard as it is to believe, today marks 164 days since President Trump dragged the United States into war with Iran — a war that has produced devastating and deeply humiliating consequences. To make sense of where we are, Tim recently sat down with former U.S. Ambassador and Domestic Policy Advisor Susan E. Rice (Ambassador Susan E. Rice) for a wide-ranging thirty-minute conversation about the war, American power, and what this moment says about the state of our democracy. They began with a fundamental question: Does this administration have a coherent conception of the national interest at all — or was this war undertaken without one? Along those lines, Susan made a striking case for just how unnecessary the war was, which led Tim to frame the conversation around three words that once defined the practice of American statecraft: Diplomacy. Doing the Work. Deterrence. * Diplomacy requires diplomats. Susan pointed to the two years of painstaking, expert-driven negotiations that produced the 2015 Iran nuclear deal — including the involvement of a Secretary of Energy who was himself a nuclear scientist. She contrasted that process with the reportedly rushed June memorandum of understanding negotiated by figures including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, which she described as poorly drafted and sufficiently vague that both sides could walk away with fundamentally different understandings of what they had agreed to. * Doing the work. Tim raised the idea that expertise, relationships, and sustained effort — the kind of career Susan has had — used to be the basis of American power, and that the current leadership treats governance more like opportunism than genuine effort. * Deterrence: Both Tim and Susan agreed that American military power was used extensively in the war, yet failed to achieve its stated goals, which Susan argued undermines the credibility of future threats. Tim added that broadcasting military plans publicly and fighting with munitions the U.S. can’t quickly replace reflects an outdated approach to modern warfare—one that hasn’t absorbed the lessons of Ukraine. Tim closed by asking whether the war might ultimately help Americans see the connection between what he described as American fecklessness abroad and what is happening here at home. Susan’s answer was one of my favorite parts of the conversation. She pointed out that the money, attention, and political capital being spent on war are resources that could instead be devoted to the things Americans actually need: healthcare, Medicaid, rural hospitals, and Social Security — programs she argued this administration has moved to cut or undermine. She also spoke candidly about a political moment in which dissent is being suppressed and rights are being curtailed. But she ended on a hopeful note, identifying three principles she believes Americans across political lines can still rally around: the Constitution, the equal application of the rule of law, and the founding belief in equality. There was no better place to end. I hope you’ll tune in, enjoy the conversation, and share it with anyone else who might be interested. There is a lot here to think about, and I think you’ll learn a great deal from Susan and Tim’s conversation. Thanks, as ever, for being part of this community of thinkers. Until next time, Victor Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
June 23 · 36 min
Strongmen Can Fail if We Act with Joyce Vance
Dear readers: Hope you have a cup of coffee in hand for this one. Tim joined Joyce Vance, former U.S. Attorney during the Obama Administration and host of Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance on Substack, to talk about what language to describe our moment, democracy, and civic participation look like today. Tim and Joyce started off by talking about how “sugarcoating” political realities can become a form of collaboration, because it delays the public response necessary to defend democratic institutions. They both also reject the idea that democracy inevitably self-corrects, stressing that there is no political “pendulum” that guarantees a return to normalcy. Tim also emphasized that democracies survive only when citizens actively participate in shaping their future. The rest of the discussion explored everything from the aftermath of the Iran war to threats against democratic norms at home, including debates over executive power, habeas corpus, voting rights, and the Supreme Court. Tim mentioned, regarding Iran, that authoritarian movements are often fueled by the illusion that force can solve complex problems, while history repeatedly shows that violence creates consequences its architects cannot control, which he writes about in his recent essays on Iran. To me, the most striking part of the conversation focused on what comes next. Tim and Joyce both urged Democrats and democracy advocates to think beyond simply winning the next election. Success, as Tim said, requires a broad coalition, a compelling vision of the future, and a willingness to pursue ambitious democratic reforms—from voting rights and anti-corruption measures to structural changes that will strengthen democratic institutions. Throughout the conversation, both Tim and Joyce returned to a common theme that has helped guide me as I try to navigate these times: history is not a script. There is no singular arc of the universe. The future remains unwritten. Whether America emerges stronger from this moment depends not on inevitability, but on the deliberate choices and actions citizens make now—and with each other. As Tim and Joyce put it in their closing messages, the answer is always action. Until next time, -Victor Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
June 22 · 31 min
Iran, Ukraine, and Freedom with Jake Sullivan and Jon Finer
Dear thinkers: Earlier today, Tim talked with Jake Sullivan and Jon Finer, two former senior national security aides to President Biden on their new show, “The Long Game.: They began with Iran — and, specifically, the power the United States has effectively surrendered through this war. As Tim put it during the conversation: “We’ve lost this war, and we lost it a long time ago.” The deeper question, he argued, is not simply how leaders can be so incompetent, but how we build institutions and a political culture that make radically incompetent leadership impossible. If you'd like to read more on this theme, Tim explored it further in his recent essays, Utopias of Violence and Capitulation Day. The conversation then turned to Ukraine: where the war stands today, why Russia is failing to achieve its objectives, the remarkable technological innovations Ukraine has developed under pressure, and what the Trump administration continues to misunderstand about the conflict. Tim also highlighted two organizations doing vital work in support of Ukraine: United24 and Razom. They concluded with a discussion of freedom — a subject Tim examines at length in his book On Freedom. One of the central ideas is that freedom cannot simply be freedom from something. We must also strive for freedom to, creating the conditions and world that will lead to true freedom. It was a thoughtful and wide-ranging conversation, and one that speaks directly to many of the challenges facing democracies today. Until next time, Victor Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
June 15 · 44 min
Strongmen, Oligarchs, & Fascists: Thinking Live with Ruth Ben-Ghiat
Dear Thinkers, This afternoon, Tim sat down with Ruth Ben-Ghiat for a conversation I think many of you will want to watch with a notebook in hand. Ruth is one of the foremost scholars of strongmen and authoritarianism — she teaches at NYU and has spent her career studying exactly the kind of moment we find ourselves in now. Together, she and Tim covered a lot of ground, from strongmen to oligarchs, to fascism, but the heart of the conversation was about how to make sense of what’s happening around us. One concept that stood out to me: the distinction between Superpower Suicide and Superpower Murder — a framework Tim has written about before, but which takes on new dimensions in conversation with Ruth. They also explored other ways of naming and framing this moment, and, crucially, what each of us can practically do in response. As Tim put it near the end, getting the language right isn’t just an intellectual exercise. It’s clarifying. It’s even enabling. Hope you find it as illuminating as I did. More Thinking Live conversations are on the way — stay tuned! — Victor Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
June 4 · 6 min
Trump's Military Dictatorship Budget
In this video, I say the obvious about Trump’s proposal to increase the military budget by nearly 50%: it’s a bribe to officers and soldiers so that they will side with him when he tries to overthrow the Constitution and stay in power indefinitely. This is where all the evidence points. If there is any consensus about Trump, it is that he is “transactional.” There is zero evidence that he has a notion of US interests. There is abundant evidence that he understands politics as a matter of people being paid off. And that is the framework in which to understand his proposed military budget. He is paying people off. No other explanation fits the data. Increasing the military budget from about a trillion dollars to about 1.5 trillion dollars makes no fiscal sense. We can’t pay for it without destroying basic government functions and soaking the American taxpayer. It makes no military sense. It is based upon no doctrinal innovation or review of technology. The “Trump-class” battleships it proposes are archaic, nonsensical, and more than a little embarrassing. The budget proposal makes no managerial sense. The Pentagon has never passed an audit, and Pete Hegseth has proven himself spectacularly unable to manage organizations of any kind. Putting an additional half a trillion dollars under his authority annually is superpower suicide. The military budget proposal only makes political sense. But it does not make democratic political sense. It is not designed to be popular among the population at large. It makes authoritarian political sense. It is designed to popular among the people with guns who Trump imagines will help him control the population at large (and they should realize this, and they should be offended.) It shifts taxpayer money to soldiers and officers in exchange for their personal loyalty to an aspiring dictator. It is a bribe to stay in power as part of an attempt to change the regime of the United States. It is not a military budget but a military dictatorship budget. Very often, when people say that Trump is “transactional,” they mean something like “just transactional”; he only cares about money, so in the end he cannot be that bad. But that is not where transactionalism leads: it leads to the basic reality that Trump has no notion of interests beyond his own, and will find it natural to take your money and spend it for his power. Transactionalism, the conventional wisdom about Trump, leads to the conclusion that the military budget is a bribe for power. But if we need more evidence of the intention, it is all around us. Hegseth is purging the upper ranks of the armed services on the basis of politics. Both Hegseth and Trump speak about a future mission of the military against the “enemy within” in the “homeland.” It’s a military dictatorship budget. Seeing it in any other way, evaluating it in terms that are transparently inapplicable, makes it more likely to pass, and more likely that a future of American military dictatorship will come to pass. None of this has to succeed. The military dictatorship budget can and should fail. But to make it fail, we have to see it for what it is. I do my best to explain in the video. Please feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe
May 21 · 13 min
The Era of the Superlosers
The United States and Russia are both losing wars. And they are losing wars that make no sense, in an uncanny folie à deux, to the benefit of China. This video, which I filmed after dozens of meetings and public discussions in Europe this month, supplies an explanatory concept: the superloser. A superloser is a leader of a great power, or (onetime) superpower, whose disastrous choices lead to a crash. He possesses a combination of skills that allow for a rise to personal power and the collapse of state power. In the video I spell out the five C’s of the superloser phenomenon: A conflict that is being lost, in the strong sense of a war: Iran for Trump, Ukraine for Putin. A concept of power that is betrayed, by the war and generally, such that it is not only defeat that is at hand, but the continuous undermining of structures. A corruption that makes national interests irrelevant; a shared example, one of many, is giving tax money to billionaires. Cooperation with the other superloser, which somehow makes matters worse both for the other superloser and for the world; Trump’s nonsensical war, for example, funds Putin’s criminal war of aggression by raising oil prices, but Putin is still unable to win and now lacks excuses for failure. A special superloser charisma, a subjective sense in society or the media that the superloser is somehow a strong man, which makes it harder to describe losses as such, and allows the damage to continue. And there is of course a sixth C: China, which despite its own enormous problems is being handed a leading role in the world by the superlosers. I will write this all out at some point, but for now I hope that this video will help you to make sense of the events of this year — or for that matter of the past few days, as both Trump and Putin have had to pay court to Xi in Beijing. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Showing 1–20 of 31 episodes