Michael McFaul

Power matters, but it's not everything. In Autocrats vs Democrats, I argue that three factors have shaped US-China/US-Russia relations in the last 250 years: power, regime type AND leaders. The interaction of these three factors explains why some eras see cooperation, others see confrontation.

Putin is losing this war. Tried to take all Ukraine—failed. Tried to overthrow Zelenskyy—failed. Tried to demilitarize Ukraine—failed. Tried to stop NATO expansion—failed. I honestly can't believe this war has not ended yet.

Putin’s war is a tragedy with no winners. Russia isn’t stronger, safer, or more prosperous for invading Ukraine. Its economy is deeply strained, emigration has accelerated, and its demographic crisis has intensified.

In 2018, after the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki, I learned Russia wanted to interrogate me (and others) in exchange for US investigators questioning 12 Russian intelligence officers over electoral interference in 2016. The White House took nearly a day to reject the proposal.

Autocracies are rising. To compete with China & Russia in the 21st century, we need to return to the basics that underpinned Cold War success: strong democratic alliances, global institutions (which can and should be reformed), and renewed engagement and cooperation.

Three decades ago, democracy looked unstoppable. Today, Russia and China are rewriting the rules. My latest book, Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America and the New Global Disorder lays out how we got here—and how the U.S. should respond. www.amazon.com/Autocrats-vs...

Ukraine isn't subjugated. Its government still stands. Its military is stronger than before. NATO expanded with Finland & Sweden joining. And Russia has paid an enormous price in casualties & economic strain. After four years, Putin is further from his goals—not closer.

Trump helped turn the Strait of Hormuz into a global crisis—and now he’s looking to China to help bail us out. Think about how that makes us look to the rest of the world.

So far, this trip feels heavy on pageantry and light on substance. Plenty of cordial exchanges, but few tangible deliverables. Maybe that changes tomorrow. But at the moment, Trump seems to view a good meeting with Xi as the goal itself.

I’m struck by how often Trump referred to Xi as his “friend” and a “great leader.” Xi Jinping, chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, is a dictator. He also offered no such reciprocal praise for Trump. That asymmetry makes Trump appear in a visibly weaker position.

The Cold War wasn’t just an arms race, it was a race of ideas. We invested in international development agencies & soft power tools to compete. Dismantling them as China expands its Belt and Road Initiative, and Russia expands its own global influence operations, is unilateral disarmament.

Once in power, Putin cut taxes for elites, consolidated media (directly or via loyalists) & sought to manipulate the electoral process. Sound familiar? Some parallels are hard to ignore. The difference? The US has strong checks, an active civil society & deep democratic traditions—that gives me hope

Even setting aside the moral case, supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression is strategic for the U.S. It lowers the risk of getting drawn into a wider NATO war in the Baltics if that aggression goes unchecked

Putin is backing Iran, strengthening a regime confronting the U.S., and exploiting the chaos for Russia’s gain. This isn’t complicated. Trump and his team need to wake up to this reality.

Trump’s impatience and erratic threats are undercutting his own team’s ability to negotiate effectively with the Iranians

A lesson from Hungary? Election winner Peter Magyar hardly ever spoke about democracy and dictatorship. He focused instead on corruption and rising costs, tying people’s struggles to the decisions and actions of those in power. That’s what resonated with voters.

NATO is for mutual defense, not a blank check for fighting other people’s wars. Its essence is prevention, not intervention. The alliance was designed to deter conflict, not to seek it out.

By disrupting the global economic order, we are making Beijing look like the rational, prudent alternative. Impressions matter. Right now, our global reputation is tanking while Beijing reaps the rewards. Watch in full: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZy3...

As peace talks with Iran hit a dead end, our president and secretary of state—the country's top diplomat—were ringside at a UFC fight. The Trump administration is doing lasting damage to our reputation on the world stage.

The U.S. and Russia were both backing the same candidate in Hungary’s recent election (and he lost). Peter Magyar’s victory is great news for Hungary, Ukraine, Europe and small-d democrats everywhere. Read more: michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/viktor-orb...

Right now, the conversation isn’t about nuclear programs, or free and fair elections in Iran. It's about reopening a body of water that was open before this war started. Chalk that up as a win for Tehran.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia may be the biggest beneficiary of Trump’s war in Iran so far—but don’t forget about Xi Jinping’s China. I discussed how both are benefitting in a recent NPR interview: www.npr.org/2026/04/03/n...

From threatening to invade Greenland to calling Canada "the 51st state" and slapping tariffs on everyone—this isn't "America First," it’s a massive self-inflicted wound. Now Trump wants to abandon NATO. That would be an all-time own goal.

Trump’s comments last night about “Obama’s Iran deal” were simply wrong. It wasn’t perfect, but it capped uranium enrichment at 3.67%. Since Trump scrapped it, Iran has enriched to 60%—much closer to weapons-grade. And that stockpile still hasn’t been eliminated.

Trump is out of step with Americans and our allies—on Iran, on Putin, and on NATO. Tonight, he needs to clearly explain why we went to war with Iran after weeks of shifting positions. Don’t be surprised if the goals suddenly get “redefined” to claim victory.

Trump isn’t unique in opposing an Iranian nuclear weapon. Obama worked with China, Russia, and our allies on a deal with real limits and inspections—and a decade later, Iran still didn’t have a nuclear bomb. Now Trump is taking a military approach. Will it work better?

No matter how this war ends, Trump will claim victory. But most Americans still don’t know why we went to war or what the objectives are. Without clear goals, how can we measure success? We "obliterated" their nuclear program last year, so what threat justified war now?

Trump said yesterday that there'd been regime change in Iran. For the avoidance of doubt, there hasn't been.

We’ve spent billions on the world’s largest navy, yet cheap Iranian drones can shut the Strait of Hormuz, and we have no answer. Ukraine has vast experience countering such drones, but Trump has arrogantly dismissed Zelensky’s offer of help. We need to catch up. Fast.

Conventional military superiority doesn’t always guarantee success (think Vietnam, Afghanistan). Russia is learning that in Ukraine, where cheap tech, political will, and innovation are undermining its advantages in scale and firepower. Will the same be true for Iran?

There's been one clear winner of Trump's war against Iran so far. Spoiler: It isn't Donald Trump.

When we act like cowboys, when we coerce and bully other countries (including our allies), China starts to look like the more reliable and predictable partner. In the long-term, that is bad for American national security interests.

In my book Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global Disorder, I argue against “might makes right” thinking. Instead, I make the case that meeting today’s challenges from Russia and China requires renewed alliances, diplomacy, and democratic leadership.

Trump said he can “live with it” if a report confirms a U.S. strike killed a school full of children in Iran. That isn’t strength. It makes America sound like the very thugs we claim to oppose.

Putin has lied his entire career. Yet Witkoff says we can take Russia “at their word” that they’re not sharing intelligence with Iran. Taking the Kremlin at face value while U.S. intelligence reportedly says otherwise is utterly incomprehensible and mind-boggling naive.

War, tariffs, and diplomacy shouldn’t hinge on what benefits Trump personally. They should come from institutions, debate, and democratic oversight—and be in America’s national interest.

Trump thinks projecting strength means using military power whenever possible. But if we look like we ignore the rules, it's harder to explain why our actions are different from those we criticize elsewhere. In an era of great power competition with Russia & China, that hurts us.

Hard deals don’t get done in weeks. Serious diplomacy requires time, direct engagement, and experienced negotiators. We didn’t see that with Iran, and that begs the question of whether these negotiations were ever aimed at reaching an agreement or simply a decoy. W/ @katiecouric.bsky.social

Trump says Iran wants to negotiate, but he’s also called on Iranians to rise up and “take over” their government. Which is it? You can’t negotiate with the same regime you’re trying to replace — that’s absurd.

I don’t remember Trump talking about military action against Iran on the campaign trail. Or Venezuela. Or Greenland.

I was asked in a Q&A this week about Russia’s post-Putin leadership. Short term? We likely see a Putin 2.0–type successor. Longer term? History suggests the pendulum swings. Watch below, or check out McFaul's World on Substack for more: michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/recording-...

Stop trying to change Putin’s mind. Change his capabilities instead. Arm Ukraine with more and better weapons, and impose tougher sanctions on Russian individuals and companies to cut off the money funding this war.

Embracing Putin while withholding critical support for Ukraine makes us look like a feckless friend and partner. And making allies purchase weapons just to reroute them to Ukraine? That isn’t leadership—it’s immoral.

Putin’s brutal war is a vanity project. He doesn’t care about Ukrainians—but he doesn't care about his own citizens either. This war ends when we strengthen Ukraine on the battlefield, tighten sanctions to starve Russia's war machine, and force Moscow to negotiate on equal terms. W/ @news.sky.com.

The immense determination of Ukrainian warriors & civilians has prevented Putin from achieving any of his initial war aims: Tried to take all Ukraine—failed. Tried to overthrow Zelenskyy—failed. Tried to stop NATO expansion—failed. Putin is losing this war. I just hope it ends soon.

Ukraine is a democracy. It isn’t perfect, and allegations of corruption around senior officials are troubling. But they’re made public precisely because Ukraine's democratic institutions are functioning. You don't see that happen in Russia because those institutions simply don't exist there

Many hear 'Trump' and think 'America'. But millions of us believe we’re better off pursuing win-win cooperation with allies than Trump's zero-sum games. In Autocrats vs Democrats, I outline an alternative strategy that advances US interests through global engagement www.amazon.com/Autocrats-vs...

I don’t remember Trump talking about military action against Iran on the campaign trail. Or Venezuela. Or Greenland. The disconnect between Trump's actions abroad and how most Americans want the U.S. to act in the world is deeply troubling

Putin has made it clear he doesn’t see Ukrainians as an independent nation. Until that belief changes, tragically, this war is likely to continue. His negotiators have given little indication that they’re prepared to engage seriously in peace talks

In Munich, I was embarrassed by America’s lack of support for Ukraine. Secretary Rubio did not even mention Putin’s invasion in his speech. I’m a patriotic American, I want to feel proud of my country again. We should stand with democracy against tyranny michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/an-embarra...

Alexei Navalny loved Russia and opposed Putin. Patriotism and dissent are not contradictions. Loving your country doesn’t mean staying silent about its leaders. No one should be murdered for speaking out.

Strength isn’t isolation. It’s partnership. At the Munich Security Conference, I’m talking about why alliances make us stronger and safer. Join me at the MSC Bookstore (18:00–18:30) as I discuss these themes + more from my book Autocrats vs. Democrats: www.amazon.com/Autocrats-vs...

This week Trump urged Republicans to “nationalize” elections. It may be one of the most anti-democratic ideas he’s floated and follows a well-worn authoritarian playbook, slowly chipping away at free & fair elections. Our democratic institutions are strong—but this is deeply disturbing

Only weeks ago, Trump spoke in support of Iranians bravely risking their lives in the fight for freedom. Now, his team are negotiating with the same regime that has brutally suppressed these protests. Should they be?

Today, the last major US-Russia nuclear arms control treaty expires. It allowed inspectors on both sides to examine each other’s systems, reducing uncertainty. Without facts, worst-case thinking takes over—and that’s dangerous for nuclear powers.

For decades, arms control limited U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons. As of tomorrow, those limits are gone. That’s a bad outcome for everyone.

Wait, Iran wants to make a deal (according to Trump)? Weren't we told months ago that we'd already eliminated Iran's nuclear weapons program?

Europe pushed back on Greenland, but Americans did too. The public, the markets, even some GOP senators spoke up. And Trump backed down. We don't live in a monarchy, we don't live in a dictatorship, and Trump won't be in power forever. Clip from my conversation on The Court of History podcast

A year ago, I wrote about being a liberal internationalist in the era of Trump’s illiberal nationalism. You can read that essay, and many more like it, on my Substack: McFaul's World. michaelmcfaul.substack.com

Trump is out of step with most Americans on Greenland. For any politician thinking of backing his crazy idea, that should matter. Voters don't want this.