[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now Susan Glasser who reports from Washington for The New Yorker is a CNN global affairs analyst and co-author of the book The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of Jim Baker. Susan, as I welcome you back to the show I'm just going to be transparent for the listeners and say a big thank you for pinch-hitting at the very last minute for Senator Chris Murphy who was scheduled for here but had to cancel at the last minute. Thank you, thank you, thank you, and welcome back to WNYC.

Susan Glasser: Well, thank you, Brian. I guess I'm curious to find out maybe Chris Murphy has some fascinating new meeting to share with us.

Brian Lehrer: Maybe so you can call him up after the segment. One of the reasons we wanted Senator Murphy for today is that he's prominent on the Foreign Relations Committee, and you have deep foreign affairs reporting experience. Let's start with Russia on the brink of invading Ukraine again, and Biden and Putin's two-hour conversation about it yesterday. My first question is, why should Americans care? Are there any US interests at stake?

Susan Glasser: Well, Brian, that is a good and important question. I think that, first of all, President Biden has said that the whole purpose and the whole organizing principle around his foreign policy is the idea that we face this very dangerous moment in the world when essentially there's a contest between autocracies like Russia and China, and democracies like the United States in a way that we just haven't seen in decades. The frontline in that confrontation between Russia and the West certainly is Ukraine. That's been the case for a number of years.

This prospect of an invasion is serious. It's real. We're talking about 175,000 troops not in some obscure place in the world but literally in the heart of Europe right now. That would, I think, mark a dangerous escalation, a new phase in the unraveling of the international order that we've seen hold more or less since the end of the Cold War. It's really a big deal. You have NATO members now right up to the border of Russia in the Baltic states. They were part of the Soviet Union, they are now part of NATO. You have Poland in a state of extreme alarm, and you have Ukraine which has basically been the punching bag stuck in between Russia and NATO for the decade since the end of the Soviet Union.

Brian Lehrer: It seems the only leverage-- If what we're going to be seeing in our news feeds, however, we get our news over the next few days, is, "Oh my God. Russia invaded Ukraine." It seems like our only leverage to try to prevent it is economic sanctions because no American will support a war for Ukraine and Putin seems to take sanctions almost as a badge of honor. Do we have any leverage?

Susan Glasser: Well, it's an important question. Obviously, geography is not on Ukraine's side when you have a very powerful neighbor like Russia. The United States, of course, is thousands of miles away. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, despite what Putin says, isn't going to become one anytime soon. That seems as unrealistic now frankly as it did in 2014 when Ukraine already was invaded by Russia.

What are US tools in the toolkit right now? I think sanctions is one of them, and I do believe that there is the possibility to exact much more of a cost with sanctions than the US has been willing to do. Even after Russia took over Crimea. I've spoken with people who've really been in charge of this policy in the past who believe that you could take the sanctions fight much more directly to Putin, to his inner circle, enormous corruption in recent years. That means that the oligarchs surrounding Putin who really have shored up his regime, and Putin himself have incredible amounts of economic assets in the west that they could be targeted. Their ability to conduct business internationally could be targeted in a way that has not been done so far.

Russia's economic interest could be targeted. There's the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany that is almost on the brink of being finished. That could finally be canceled. That's been a major sore point between the United States and Germany for the last three administrations going back to the Obama administration, so that's something that could be canceled. There's a variety of things. More lethal aid and military assistance to Ukraine.

Remember Obama did not want to send lethal weapons, but gave other kinds of military assistance to Ukrainians. Trump administration added lethal assistance and the Biden administration has continued that. There could be much more done as far as that goes. There are things that can be done to signal to Russia in a more explicit way. Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, he came out yesterday and he said directly, "The US is prepared to take actions now that we did not take after 2014." That's the message that they're sending to Russia.

Brian Lehrer: Is there a trading places between liberals and conservatives on Russia? During the Cold War, the conservatives were all gung-ho, "Stop the evil empire with its territorial expansion," among other things at that time. Liberals were like "Oh, let's have detente and get along." Now you have the liberals saying, "We cannot have Russia invading Ukraine," and we have the conservatives, maybe it's only because Russia helped Donald Trump, but saying, "Let's not get beyond our skis here."

Susan Glasser: [chuckles] I do think it reflects part of the ongoing scrambling of what used to be known as the Republican Party that's taken place as a result of both Donald Trump and Trump-ism. You saw this incredible turnaround for example in polls of Republican voters once Donald Trump was flattering Vladimir Putin and talking about the need to get along with Russia. You saw this dramatic switch in Republicans who had maintained more or less their Cold War era hawkishness right on through the decades, and then Trump signaled this abrupt change in course. You did see him bringing along large numbers of Republican voters with him and changing their views.

There's been a kind of ideological scrambling. I think it also reflects this framing that President Biden has sought to put on it, which is this idea that we're entering a period almost akin to the 1930s and this conflict between democracies of the world, and autocracies, and dictatorships. People forget that, but that was a lot of the language that was used by Franklin Roosevelt and others in the '30s, was this idea of a conflict between democracies and dictatorships.

I think that's part of why you see Democrats responding to that language when it comes to Vladimir Putin and the kind of threat that he poses, but the willingness of the American people to engage in any military conflicts overseas is incredibly limited right now, not across the political spectrum, not Democrat or Republican

Brian Lehrer: With Susan Glasser from The New Yorker. Before we go on to China, and the Olympics, and Afghanistan, incredible moral dilemma for the United States in Afghanistan right now. I think we'll get to that. To put up a pin in what you said just a second ago, Biden also has this summit of democracies coming up this week. It hasn't gotten a lot of press yet. Maybe it will when it takes place. I know there are some questions being raised because of some of the countries that are included that aren't such great models of democracy.

I think what you just pointed at is one of the big organizing principles of Joe Biden's presidency and a contrast to Donald Trump that maybe doesn't get enough press. How Trump was realigning foreign policy, it looked to me like instead of aligning with all the democracies of the world as complex as that even is, he was aligning with all the authoritarians of the world because they were propping each other up. Him, and Putin, and Bolsonaro, and Duterte, and Orban, and go down the list, even though most of those I just mentioned are being included in the summit of democracies.

Biden is trying to save the world from this creeping authoritarianism, like you say, in country after country and how it might even now spill over into us with the canceling of elections that a lot of Republicans want to do and things that. Can we accomplish that through foreign policy?

Susan Glasser: That is a great and it's the key question right now, Brian. Otherwise, I would say America's allies and its adversaries see the United States not doing anything of the kind right now. What they see is a superpower in if not retreat at least retrenchment. They see a superpower whose relative muscle in the world and desire to engage with the world has been severely constrained, not least by our own internal fights and divisions with each other, of the kind that you just alluded to.

The summit for democracies is a great example of that. It's a rhetoric that plays well certainly with the Democratic Party activist base, but at the same time, there's this big question, first of all, about our ability. How can we play a leadership role in the world when we're so internally divided and dysfunctional and sclerotic in our own democracy? What kind of a model of democracy are we showing to the rest of the world when you see what's happening here inside the United States? That's a big problem.

Another problem, of course, is the one that Biden's aid knew and dreaded from the minute that this idea was proposed back during the campaign that they would be collaborated with, who's on the invite list and who's not on the invite list. They tried to have to deal with this by a clever sleight of hand and changing the name of it from The Summit of Democracy to The Summit for Democracy. [chuckles]

Brian Lehrer: Wow.

Susan Glasser: It's more aspirational, but of course who's paying attention to that level of nuance? Why is Pakistan invited, but NATO and EU member like Hungary is not? Why is Turkey on the list, but another important potential ally is not? You this silly distraction that they feared all along. Also, it's taking place virtually because of the pandemic, and there's a real question as to, "Is this just more talking, another [unintelligible 00:11:36] in a world that really doesn't need more yak-yak but it needs more action.

In that too, there's this eerie and uncomfortable echo of the 1930s and the question of what do you do when faced with outrageous disruptions or potential disruptions of the international order? I read a great bit of vicious [unintelligible 00:11:59] from Britain in the 1930s mocking their politicians for talking and writing up position papers when Italy under Mussolini was preparing to invade Ethiopia which by the way is exactly what Italy did. There's just this big question right now about America's appetite or ability to lead in the world.

Brian Lehrer: Afghanistan. I've been reading about almost half the country being at risk of starvation now that the US has suspended humanitarian aid because of Taliban rule. How much of a moral dilemma is that for the Biden administration right now? They don't want to prop up the Taliban, but if this mass starvation event is really as bad as is being reported or threatened, oh my God.

Susan Glasser: Oh, that's right. It's horrible for anyone who has ever paid the slightest attention to Afghanistan. When I was there, I covered the initial US invasion of Afghanistan back in 2001 and 2002. This is like watching a car crash that was predicted unfold and seeing this tragedy play out, unfortunately in just the way that those who had been paying close attention feared and anticipated.

By the way, to the point about democracy and human rights, this is a painful test of the Biden administration. It's one that it's almost inconceivable that they will pass. The bottom line is that, during the Afghanistan withdrawal over the summer in August, Tony Blinken, his secretary of state said, "Notwithstanding what's happening in Afghanistan, democracy and human rights, human rights will remain the foundation of American foreign policy." It's hard to see how if human rights is a foundation of American foreign policy, that we wouldn't be doing very different things than we are in fact doing or plan to do in Afghanistan right now.

Brian Lehrer: What could those things be? Because I think the dilemma that multiple presidents got hung up on in that 20-year war was that, even aside from the national security concerns for the United States was if women were going to be so oppressed by Taliban rule, if democracy for others as well was going to be so diminished or abolished, the alternative was the US-supported corrupt government that was over there when we were supporting them.

Americans don't see the national security interest anymore. It's not the Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden era anymore, so why continue to spill American blood over there? If we're not engaged over there, things like what's happening because the Taliban rule is so terrible that it even contributes to starvation as the economy collapses, is there any right answer?

Susan Glasser: Look, this is why it's a terrible foreign policy dilemma, but the Biden administration understood privately certainly very clearly what the consequences might be, including exactly this scenario when they left. There was a certain amount of public blabbing about the new kinder, gentler Taliban. That was always bogus. That was never going to be the case. I think it was a clear-eyed decision.

Again, you can argue, and many people believe it's a justifiable decision for all the reasons that you just laid out, Brian, that the United States would no longer continue to be there, but this is the consequence. Americans just aren't very good at accepting that there might be a cost. and it might be uncomfortable for them, in a moral sense, to confront the cost of their choices. We've made choices in Afghanistan and they have come with cost including a cost in human lives as well.

Brian Lehrer: I guess the debate at the end of the day in Afghanistan was, "Could we keep a small number of troops there, just a few thousand troops, and that would deter the Taliban enough that the nominal Afghanistan government could remain intact and things would get this bad?" Or as I think Biden argued and Blinken argued, "If we tried to do that, the Taliban would just up its military offensive against the Americans, draw a lot of American blood, and then force this decision anyway, bigger war or go home."

Susan Glasser: Yes, I think that's a very fair outlining.

Brian Lehrer: In your opinion, as a foreign affairs expert, did Biden get that right, that, that's what would've happened, that we'd now be having a conversation about war and American bloodshed in Afghanistan if we weren't having this conversation?

Susan Glasser: I think you've outlined very fairly what the divide was, what the choice was for Biden. In the end, it's a choice with a series of unknowable outcomes, but what strikes me is that it's quite predictable. What's playing out now is a consequence of that choice in terms of potential famine and human catastrophe inside Afghanistan, Taliban not keeping their word, not allowing girls to go to school, not allowing women's rights, constraining and constricting the society in dramatic and really radical ways. No one can be surprised that that's the consequence of that decision.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing, because we only invited you on to talk about hard things. We'll have to do another segment where you talk about easier things. China. There are new fears of China invading Taiwan. I don't know if it's really going to happen, but at the same time that everybody's worried about Russia invading Ukraine, people are worried about China invading Taiwan, which China still claims should be part of it. There's the US diplomatic boycott of the upcoming winter Olympics in China because of the imprisonment of Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai after she accused a government official of sexual assault, but we're still sending our athletes. Are we looking the other way in effect at this mix of authoritarianism and misogyny?

Susan Glasser: I think that it's a significant step. It's the first time since Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Olympics announced a boycott. He went for a full boycott. Most people think Democrats and Republicans that was a disaster and did not really work out successfully for Carter. This is a different more limited option. You see just today, I believe the British joining in with a diplomatic boycott as well as the United States.

One thing that's very important, and that is a big difference I think in the Biden foreign policy versus certainly the Trump foreign policy is a desire to be much more in sync with the allies, to be both tougher and more confrontational when it comes to Russia and China, but to do in coordination as much as possible with European allies and Asian allies when it comes to China. You see that for example, this week with Biden making a point of calling European leaders before his video conference with Vladimir Putin, and then once again, afterwards, after he had that call, same thing on the coordinated to roll out of the diplomatic boycott of the Olympics.

Maybe it's not going to happen in the very short term. It's not like Russia with Ukraine right now and 175,000 troops on the border, but China's made it clear that it's playing a long term, very clear-cut military game when it comes to Taiwan, and much more assertive, even changing military doctrine toward Taiwan in the last few years. I think there's a real concern that this might not be a tomorrow problem with Taiwan, but it's one that we can't just ignore, that it really is going to be a confrontation at least in the medium term.

Brian Lehrer: Susan Glasser, who reports from Washington for The New Yorker is a CNN global affairs analyst and co-author of The man who ran Washington: the Life and Times of Jim Baker. Susan, so interesting and incisive as always. Again, you stepped up at the very last minute when Senator Murphy had to cancel. Thank you so much.

Susan Glasser: Oh, thanks for being with you, Brian.

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.