Anne Applebaum

They're willing to work both with the democratic world and the autocratic world. Of course, many democracies work with the autocratic world, too. So it's not the Cold War. It's not as if there's a Berlin Wall and there are good guys on one side and there are bad guys on the other and there are clear lines between them.

They're willing to work both with the democratic world and the autocratic world. Of course, many democracies work with the autocratic world, too. So it's not the Cold War. It's not as if there's a Berlin Wall and there are good guys on one side and there are bad guys on the other and there are clear lines between them.

And BRICS includes, you know, just by including Brazil, by including India, by including South Africa, those are states that are hybrid. I mean, actually, Brazil is a democracy. Those are states with a different set of interests from Russia and China and Iran.

And BRICS includes, you know, just by including Brazil, by including India, by including South Africa, those are states that are hybrid. I mean, actually, Brazil is a democracy. Those are states with a different set of interests from Russia and China and Iran.

And BRICS includes, you know, just by including Brazil, by including India, by including South Africa, those are states that are hybrid. I mean, actually, Brazil is a democracy. Those are states with a different set of interests from Russia and China and Iran.

You've just hit on a really, really important point about alliances. One of the things that makes the United States different from other large superpowers on the planet is that we have had for many decades these values-based alliances. that are based on long-term relationships, trading relationships, cultural relationships, military ties, but also personal ties.

You've just hit on a really, really important point about alliances. One of the things that makes the United States different from other large superpowers on the planet is that we have had for many decades these values-based alliances. that are based on long-term relationships, trading relationships, cultural relationships, military ties, but also personal ties.

You've just hit on a really, really important point about alliances. One of the things that makes the United States different from other large superpowers on the planet is that we have had for many decades these values-based alliances. that are based on long-term relationships, trading relationships, cultural relationships, military ties, but also personal ties.

The U.S., Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea, these are countries that have worked together in ways that are deeper than mere opportunism. And they've understood those relationships for a long time as being kind of win-win relationships. They're not zero-sum. It's not like one person wins, one person loses. And you're right. Unlike the relationships of the autocratic world,

The U.S., Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea, these are countries that have worked together in ways that are deeper than mere opportunism. And they've understood those relationships for a long time as being kind of win-win relationships. They're not zero-sum. It's not like one person wins, one person loses. And you're right. Unlike the relationships of the autocratic world,

The U.S., Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea, these are countries that have worked together in ways that are deeper than mere opportunism. And they've understood those relationships for a long time as being kind of win-win relationships. They're not zero-sum. It's not like one person wins, one person loses. And you're right. Unlike the relationships of the autocratic world,

they're not merely opportunistic. They're not simply to achieve, you know, a business deal. You know, they're meant to be long term and they're meant to last a long time. And they are, of course, right now under threat.

they're not merely opportunistic. They're not simply to achieve, you know, a business deal. You know, they're meant to be long term and they're meant to last a long time. And they are, of course, right now under threat.

they're not merely opportunistic. They're not simply to achieve, you know, a business deal. You know, they're meant to be long term and they're meant to last a long time. And they are, of course, right now under threat.

This is right. So, yes, the Soviet Union did seek to appear to be an international law abiding state. And it took seriously criticisms of the Soviet Union at the U.N. This is actually before both of our time. But there's a famous scene at the U.N., you know, many decades ago when Khrushchev, who was then the leader of the Soviet Union, famously was supposed to have banged his shoe on the table.

This is right. So, yes, the Soviet Union did seek to appear to be an international law abiding state. And it took seriously criticisms of the Soviet Union at the U.N. This is actually before both of our time. But there's a famous scene at the U.N., you know, many decades ago when Khrushchev, who was then the leader of the Soviet Union, famously was supposed to have banged his shoe on the table.

This is right. So, yes, the Soviet Union did seek to appear to be an international law abiding state. And it took seriously criticisms of the Soviet Union at the U.N. This is actually before both of our time. But there's a famous scene at the U.N., you know, many decades ago when Khrushchev, who was then the leader of the Soviet Union, famously was supposed to have banged his shoe on the table.

OK. And the reason why he, which, by the way, it's not clear whether it really happened, but it's one of those things that's too good to check. But supposedly banged his shoe on the table. And the reason he did it was because another delegate, if memory serves, it was from someone from the Philippines, but I could be wrong, had accused him of violating the rights of people in Central Europe.

OK. And the reason why he, which, by the way, it's not clear whether it really happened, but it's one of those things that's too good to check. But supposedly banged his shoe on the table. And the reason he did it was because another delegate, if memory serves, it was from someone from the Philippines, but I could be wrong, had accused him of violating the rights of people in Central Europe.

OK. And the reason why he, which, by the way, it's not clear whether it really happened, but it's one of those things that's too good to check. But supposedly banged his shoe on the table. And the reason he did it was because another delegate, if memory serves, it was from someone from the Philippines, but I could be wrong, had accused him of violating the rights of people in Central Europe.