To hear an ally (Ukraine) called a “vassal” who is supposed to pay tribute to a petulant child masking himself as president of the U.S. is disgusting. I’ve enjoyed the FP for its ability to discuss issues that the rest of the media has ignored or been so partisan on that there is little truth in their reporting (the crisis of rising antisemitism for one thing). But, if you’re going to do a deep dive into foreign policy, how about showing the same care by bringing on foreign policy experts rather than three people with no understanding of it? I hope this episode was a blip rather than a pattern. I came for moderate, common sense discussions, not drink-the-koolaid maga lunacy—there are plenty of outlets who already do that.
After the last couple of episodes where Batya was featured, I have turned off the renewal of my paid subscription. All your other commentators have nuanced positions and have an ability to be critical of their own side. I can't understand how you keep featuring someone like Batya who is so simplistic and unable to consider other viewpoints. She drags down both the tone and the intellectual nuance of every discussion.
I get the impression Bari thinks the mainstream went wrong in only platforming mono-perspectives. I think they actually went wrong in platforming "bad faith" perspectives in support of their mono-perspective.
I think there are good faith arguments to make about the MAGA position on Ukraine (i.e. Trump inherits a bad situation and the ugliness is just due to ripping the band aid off, or it's Europe's problem they need to step up and handle their own business).
My objection to Ms. Ungar-Sargon is not that she provides a MAGA viewpoint, but that she provides bad faith arguments. I come to TFP not just for a variety of perspectives but for perspectives made in good faith. Ms. Ungar-Sargon falls well short of that standard.
You have some good points here but you miss a lot of nuance. Caldwell’s explanation of the history of the conflict is informative and goes some way to explaining why Ukraine is so important to Russia but he does not explain why the majority of Ukrainians desperately do not want to be part of Russia. You can’t tell the story accurately without that piece.
I am unimpressed by Batya’s childish assertion that the Russians want to be friends with us. The Russians act only in their strategic interests and friendship plays no part. The same cannot be said of Batya’s beloved Trump who likely could have gotten a peace deal (and earned the Russians respect) by being tougher with Moscow and treating the Ukrainians with respect.
Why don’t you get Timothy Snyder or someone truly knowledgeable about Ukraine to debate on this show?
I have been a fan of the FP and the Honestly podcast for some time. I enjoy the content and the variety of views over the last couple of years. To the point where I am now a paid subscriber.. So my question is why do the same people continually find there way onto your Podcast.. Nothing against Briana Wu or Batya but i know their views.. it would be nice to hear from others.. My opinion
Part of the problem with MSM is the absolute predictability of people's takes. They must be filtered through the relevant tribal lens. A lot the appeal of TFP is it is somewhat unpredictable and not beholden to our tribal divisions . . . except for Batya. She is an absolutely predictable MAGA culture warrior. She has a hammer and every issue is a nail.
Guys (whoever at FP reads this stuff!) I am a supporter and a huge admirer of all the work you’ve done and continue to do. I’m really hesitant to criticise because you’re getting so much right - and in any case, who the hell am I? - but I really feel like I need to say this, for what it’s worth.
I love Batya’s writing, I find her takes generally insightful and challenging and well reasoned, but in the context of these discussions I find her absolutely insufferable. On every issue it’s the same points made over and over, with the same tedious, combative, whiny insistence and needless intensity. For the last two episodes I’ve been able to call her responses almost note-perfectly before she made them, and found myself unable to even listen to this latest as I knew I’d find it too frustrating.
The thing I always found refreshing about the FP was the absence of writers so ideological that they reliably fit the world with which they are presented into a narrative to which they have already committed, as is the case with so many in the legacy media. With these discussions that has no longer been the case.
Please please please change up the panel. In the current format you aren’t getting the most out of the topics, the guests, or the questions.
I agree. I really appreciat the sober but different analyses of Brianna and Christopher-- both seem interested in understanding the truth, rather than acting as a booster for a political project. Batya seemed to be having a different conversation. If we want a showdown between partisans, why not pair Batya with a progressive partisan for a crossfire-style podcast? Not my cup of tea, but it seems that some people are interested.
Brianna Wu, I'm not sure she knows that the US is not a democracy but a republic ? Many liberals are very confused by this in that they think they are the same . The US in general is 100% against democracy because they have never worked , they always fail because of the main problem of mob rule . This is well documented in our founders documents and reasons for the creating the republic . She thinks the US should grow democracy all over the world which is just not what we are about , WTF is she talking about and why is she on this kind of pod casts . Christopher and Batya are coming from different places but they both seem to understand a lot , and added a lot to the conversation but Brianna is not at the same level at all, please take what she/he says with a grain of salt because she is very confused .
In general interesting if you take Bianna out of it .
Her/he rant about Democracy and the US must spread it everywhere was just amazing in that we are a republic so I really think she/he doesn't know the difference ? So ya why was she/he there ?
Batya, like many MAGA, has an extremely limited view of American and European history - likely based on their upbringing in hollowed out flyover country. For example, she shouldn't conflate post-WWII cold war policy with the economic decline of our industrial base. I'm old enough to remember when Japan was kicking our butts in the 70s and 80s - the exporting of industry had more to do with the rise of unions and the desire of companies to find cheap labor. BTW, if you want to blame wasteful foreign policies, then the answer begins with GWBush who made the wrong call after 9/11 that his dad never would've that embroiled US in the middle east for a generation. Then Obama continued the failed nation building experiments while China grew in economic strength.
Brianna and Chris were more spot on with their historical perspectives particularly when it comes to tyrants - Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton understood this perspective quite clearly - protect western democratic regimes at all costs. Regarding Russia - yes it's a border dispute but to them that border extends through Ukraine and Poland and the Baltics. Russia is the most paranoid nation on Earth and has a right to be since they've been invaded from the West and East over and over again. However that doesn't give them the right to trapse through Ukraine.
In the end, Trump doesn't believe in this paradigm because he's a transactional business person - no moral high ground, just this deal. So what exactly is Trump's view beyond the art of the deal? Here, Congress is basically giving him carte blanche to do whatever he wants with any amount of $ that comes with it. That's much scarier than anything else because appeasement is weakness to strongmen - that's a simple fact. Too bad the Europeans have only just awakened. Maybe that's the best news in all of this
Its so wild for me to watch the right turn into the left so fast after tasting even a touch of power. Its like y'all learned nothing about how they fell from power so hard and so fast and are hellbent on recreating it for yourselves.
Can someone help me here. This mineral deal is not the cease fire agreement. The signing of this, from my understanding, is that the US will continue to support Ukraine and initiate talks with Russia. Nowhere have I seen that if Ukraine signs this deal Russia will stop fighting, lay down their arms and start negotiating peace.
Does this administration know what Putin wants in return for a cease fire. Do they know what Ukraine will accept for a peace deal. I’m missing the connection between this agreement and lasting peace. And don’t tell me the US will have contractors in the country extracting these minerals so Russia will be deterred from hostilities. There were Americans in the country when they attacked the first time and Russia loves detaining Americans on trumped up charges only to be released in a prisoner swap.
I think the idea behind the mineral rights deal is that the US would have a stake in Ukraine's economy and sovereignty. These minerals being critical to the US, including defense. The implication is that if Russia interfered with our interests there would be some sort of consequences. Especially if US companies had a presence in Ukraine. Just not a military presence. That's my take.
Is anyone else seriously tired of Batya? She preaches and screeches until your ears hurt. I think she absolutely ruined this podcast and shut down more reasoned voices. I have decided any podcast that includes her will be avoided.
I’m not tired of Batya OR Briana. I want to hear other perspectives even if they don’t match mine totally (which would help them because then they’d be correct <G>).
I think Batya somewhat overplays her allegiance to Trump, but then so does Bari overplay her continuous aversion to Trump’s demeanor. I understand that but wouldn’t include it every 90seconds like clockwork.
I’m just glad I get to hear different perspectives. I’m as glad that they’re still available as the different members at the Constitutional Convention. Think of what we’d have were it not for that -a MSNBC version of the Articles of Confederation.
Batya reminds me of one of those voters that Trump was referring to back in 2016: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters". Batya's credibility is shattered when she insists on defending the indefensible. She could do much better by emulating Brianna who is the voice of reason rather than being a Trump's myrmidon.
Sure. However, Batya argues that its "democratic" for America to force Ukraine into a unilateral surrender to Russia with no concessions from Russia because "its what the American voter wants."
Ill take Brianna's conflation of Republic and Democracy (which is a pretty mild distinction given the way we elect every member of the legislature by popular vote now), over Batyas insanely imperialist view of "if American voters want anything anywhere its clearly 'democracy.'"
She did not say "unilateral surrender to Russia" but what are few words here and there ?
And the main problem with liberal thinking is they think Republic and Democracy are the same , which they have no sameness , they are night and day apart ! Communist are all for democracy , I am not .
She's full throating Trump's plan, which as of right now is effective unilateral surrender to Russia with no concessions from Russia at all.
I understand you think the Republic vs democracy is some major point scorer for you, it's not. No one gives a shit for the minor semantic different. It really just makes you look like an insufferable pendant.
Yo be very clear, the US system of government would be most accurately described as a Democratic Republic based on how our legislators and executive are selected, but you don't really care about that.
So because she is for Trump ideas your TDS kicks in ? Words matter and pushing ideas that democracy is what the US is wrong . I do care so don't assume !
I assume you don't care because your semantically wrong. The us is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy, it is in fact a combination of both. Calling it either a democracy nor republic would be wrong. Given the confidence you have in your own knowledge only to be wrong, I assumed you didn't care that you were wrong (why would you, I bet you couldn't link me to a single thread where you have ever admitted to being wrong).
Batya is a Trump sycophant and you must find a different conservative contributor because Batya has no credibility
Batya is a Trump sycophant and you should find a different conservative contributor because Batya has no credibility
Love these discussions. BTW, Batya, "Punkt fakhert" is Yiddish, not Aramaic; you may have been thinking of "Ahderhabba"
To hear an ally (Ukraine) called a “vassal” who is supposed to pay tribute to a petulant child masking himself as president of the U.S. is disgusting. I’ve enjoyed the FP for its ability to discuss issues that the rest of the media has ignored or been so partisan on that there is little truth in their reporting (the crisis of rising antisemitism for one thing). But, if you’re going to do a deep dive into foreign policy, how about showing the same care by bringing on foreign policy experts rather than three people with no understanding of it? I hope this episode was a blip rather than a pattern. I came for moderate, common sense discussions, not drink-the-koolaid maga lunacy—there are plenty of outlets who already do that.
After the last couple of episodes where Batya was featured, I have turned off the renewal of my paid subscription. All your other commentators have nuanced positions and have an ability to be critical of their own side. I can't understand how you keep featuring someone like Batya who is so simplistic and unable to consider other viewpoints. She drags down both the tone and the intellectual nuance of every discussion.
I get the impression Bari thinks the mainstream went wrong in only platforming mono-perspectives. I think they actually went wrong in platforming "bad faith" perspectives in support of their mono-perspective.
I think there are good faith arguments to make about the MAGA position on Ukraine (i.e. Trump inherits a bad situation and the ugliness is just due to ripping the band aid off, or it's Europe's problem they need to step up and handle their own business).
My objection to Ms. Ungar-Sargon is not that she provides a MAGA viewpoint, but that she provides bad faith arguments. I come to TFP not just for a variety of perspectives but for perspectives made in good faith. Ms. Ungar-Sargon falls well short of that standard.
You have some good points here but you miss a lot of nuance. Caldwell’s explanation of the history of the conflict is informative and goes some way to explaining why Ukraine is so important to Russia but he does not explain why the majority of Ukrainians desperately do not want to be part of Russia. You can’t tell the story accurately without that piece.
I am unimpressed by Batya’s childish assertion that the Russians want to be friends with us. The Russians act only in their strategic interests and friendship plays no part. The same cannot be said of Batya’s beloved Trump who likely could have gotten a peace deal (and earned the Russians respect) by being tougher with Moscow and treating the Ukrainians with respect.
Why don’t you get Timothy Snyder or someone truly knowledgeable about Ukraine to debate on this show?
I have been a fan of the FP and the Honestly podcast for some time. I enjoy the content and the variety of views over the last couple of years. To the point where I am now a paid subscriber.. So my question is why do the same people continually find there way onto your Podcast.. Nothing against Briana Wu or Batya but i know their views.. it would be nice to hear from others.. My opinion
Batya is simply no intellectual match in terms of her knowledge and ability to examine these complex historical issues .
Part of the problem with MSM is the absolute predictability of people's takes. They must be filtered through the relevant tribal lens. A lot the appeal of TFP is it is somewhat unpredictable and not beholden to our tribal divisions . . . except for Batya. She is an absolutely predictable MAGA culture warrior. She has a hammer and every issue is a nail.
Guys (whoever at FP reads this stuff!) I am a supporter and a huge admirer of all the work you’ve done and continue to do. I’m really hesitant to criticise because you’re getting so much right - and in any case, who the hell am I? - but I really feel like I need to say this, for what it’s worth.
I love Batya’s writing, I find her takes generally insightful and challenging and well reasoned, but in the context of these discussions I find her absolutely insufferable. On every issue it’s the same points made over and over, with the same tedious, combative, whiny insistence and needless intensity. For the last two episodes I’ve been able to call her responses almost note-perfectly before she made them, and found myself unable to even listen to this latest as I knew I’d find it too frustrating.
The thing I always found refreshing about the FP was the absence of writers so ideological that they reliably fit the world with which they are presented into a narrative to which they have already committed, as is the case with so many in the legacy media. With these discussions that has no longer been the case.
Please please please change up the panel. In the current format you aren’t getting the most out of the topics, the guests, or the questions.
Sorry to be a dick.
Very well put. I agree with every point you made.
I agree. I really appreciat the sober but different analyses of Brianna and Christopher-- both seem interested in understanding the truth, rather than acting as a booster for a political project. Batya seemed to be having a different conversation. If we want a showdown between partisans, why not pair Batya with a progressive partisan for a crossfire-style podcast? Not my cup of tea, but it seems that some people are interested.
Brianna Wu, I'm not sure she knows that the US is not a democracy but a republic ? Many liberals are very confused by this in that they think they are the same . The US in general is 100% against democracy because they have never worked , they always fail because of the main problem of mob rule . This is well documented in our founders documents and reasons for the creating the republic . She thinks the US should grow democracy all over the world which is just not what we are about , WTF is she talking about and why is she on this kind of pod casts . Christopher and Batya are coming from different places but they both seem to understand a lot , and added a lot to the conversation but Brianna is not at the same level at all, please take what she/he says with a grain of salt because she is very confused .
In general interesting if you take Bianna out of it .
Putin isn’t. He’s a war criminal 100,000 times over. He poisoned and murders the opposition. And Hitler became truly evil after appeasement.
Hitler wrote about everything he was going to do way before appeasement . It's just no one believed he was that crazy and he was .
I continue to be baffled at Bari platfoming Brianna Wu. Why? What does this person add to any discussion?
Her/he rant about Democracy and the US must spread it everywhere was just amazing in that we are a republic so I really think she/he doesn't know the difference ? So ya why was she/he there ?
Batya, like many MAGA, has an extremely limited view of American and European history - likely based on their upbringing in hollowed out flyover country. For example, she shouldn't conflate post-WWII cold war policy with the economic decline of our industrial base. I'm old enough to remember when Japan was kicking our butts in the 70s and 80s - the exporting of industry had more to do with the rise of unions and the desire of companies to find cheap labor. BTW, if you want to blame wasteful foreign policies, then the answer begins with GWBush who made the wrong call after 9/11 that his dad never would've that embroiled US in the middle east for a generation. Then Obama continued the failed nation building experiments while China grew in economic strength.
Brianna and Chris were more spot on with their historical perspectives particularly when it comes to tyrants - Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton understood this perspective quite clearly - protect western democratic regimes at all costs. Regarding Russia - yes it's a border dispute but to them that border extends through Ukraine and Poland and the Baltics. Russia is the most paranoid nation on Earth and has a right to be since they've been invaded from the West and East over and over again. However that doesn't give them the right to trapse through Ukraine.
In the end, Trump doesn't believe in this paradigm because he's a transactional business person - no moral high ground, just this deal. So what exactly is Trump's view beyond the art of the deal? Here, Congress is basically giving him carte blanche to do whatever he wants with any amount of $ that comes with it. That's much scarier than anything else because appeasement is weakness to strongmen - that's a simple fact. Too bad the Europeans have only just awakened. Maybe that's the best news in all of this
You seem to have a limited understanding of MAGA, likely from having lived so long in the hollowed out area between your buttocks. LOL
Its so wild for me to watch the right turn into the left so fast after tasting even a touch of power. Its like y'all learned nothing about how they fell from power so hard and so fast and are hellbent on recreating it for yourselves.
You mean with the butt joke? I just thought it was funny.
Can someone help me here. This mineral deal is not the cease fire agreement. The signing of this, from my understanding, is that the US will continue to support Ukraine and initiate talks with Russia. Nowhere have I seen that if Ukraine signs this deal Russia will stop fighting, lay down their arms and start negotiating peace.
Does this administration know what Putin wants in return for a cease fire. Do they know what Ukraine will accept for a peace deal. I’m missing the connection between this agreement and lasting peace. And don’t tell me the US will have contractors in the country extracting these minerals so Russia will be deterred from hostilities. There were Americans in the country when they attacked the first time and Russia loves detaining Americans on trumped up charges only to be released in a prisoner swap.
I think the idea behind the mineral rights deal is that the US would have a stake in Ukraine's economy and sovereignty. These minerals being critical to the US, including defense. The implication is that if Russia interfered with our interests there would be some sort of consequences. Especially if US companies had a presence in Ukraine. Just not a military presence. That's my take.
Is anyone else seriously tired of Batya? She preaches and screeches until your ears hurt. I think she absolutely ruined this podcast and shut down more reasoned voices. I have decided any podcast that includes her will be avoided.
I’m not tired of Batya OR Briana. I want to hear other perspectives even if they don’t match mine totally (which would help them because then they’d be correct <G>).
I think Batya somewhat overplays her allegiance to Trump, but then so does Bari overplay her continuous aversion to Trump’s demeanor. I understand that but wouldn’t include it every 90seconds like clockwork.
I’m just glad I get to hear different perspectives. I’m as glad that they’re still available as the different members at the Constitutional Convention. Think of what we’d have were it not for that -a MSNBC version of the Articles of Confederation.
I completely agree. I was going to recommend this podcast to a friend but Batya's screeching voice was nearly intolerable. Cool your jets, sister.
Batya reminds me of one of those voters that Trump was referring to back in 2016: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters". Batya's credibility is shattered when she insists on defending the indefensible. She could do much better by emulating Brianna who is the voice of reason rather than being a Trump's myrmidon.
Sorry Brianna doesn't understand the difference in Democracy and republic , and that is a real problem .
Sure. However, Batya argues that its "democratic" for America to force Ukraine into a unilateral surrender to Russia with no concessions from Russia because "its what the American voter wants."
Ill take Brianna's conflation of Republic and Democracy (which is a pretty mild distinction given the way we elect every member of the legislature by popular vote now), over Batyas insanely imperialist view of "if American voters want anything anywhere its clearly 'democracy.'"
She did not say "unilateral surrender to Russia" but what are few words here and there ?
And the main problem with liberal thinking is they think Republic and Democracy are the same , which they have no sameness , they are night and day apart ! Communist are all for democracy , I am not .
She's full throating Trump's plan, which as of right now is effective unilateral surrender to Russia with no concessions from Russia at all.
I understand you think the Republic vs democracy is some major point scorer for you, it's not. No one gives a shit for the minor semantic different. It really just makes you look like an insufferable pendant.
Yo be very clear, the US system of government would be most accurately described as a Democratic Republic based on how our legislators and executive are selected, but you don't really care about that.
So because she is for Trump ideas your TDS kicks in ? Words matter and pushing ideas that democracy is what the US is wrong . I do care so don't assume !
What is my "TDS" here? I'm curious.
I assume you don't care because your semantically wrong. The us is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy, it is in fact a combination of both. Calling it either a democracy nor republic would be wrong. Given the confidence you have in your own knowledge only to be wrong, I assumed you didn't care that you were wrong (why would you, I bet you couldn't link me to a single thread where you have ever admitted to being wrong).