Timothy Garton Ash, the British historian and columnist, wrote in The Guardian’s op-ed page three days after America’s 2016 election secured Donald Trump the White House that the phrase “leader of the free world” is usually applied to the US president, "and rarely without irony”. Garton Ash was tempted to say, at that time, “that the leader of the free world is now Angela Merkel”.

This should be a familiar trope to our listeners, whom by the way we’ve subjected to an unusually long wait since our last episode. Those who have stuck with us—through long hiatuses and prolific bouts of production—will remember that our third guest on the show, back in early October 2020, was John Kampfner. Merkel had one year left in office then, but the veteran British correspondent reflected already on her legacy. The Anglosphere, with its Brexit-cum-Trump dual schock of right-wing populism in 2016, had been losing its cachet for facts, expertise and statesmanly maturity. The German model, instead—and Angela Merkel’s leadership of it specifically—offered the liberal West a different way: a model of competent management but also a mystic of anti-populism, a disposition towards consensus even at the risk of appearing aloof.

This dilemma surfaces repeatedly in today’s episode, with which we resume our activities. Is Merkelism style or substance? The former Empress of Europe was often hailed as a stalwart of liberal values. But why not focus on her methods, now that scorching challenges to her worldview are back in force since Trump’s re-election? What does it say about the West that we’re in desperate need of liberal heroes when, what we do have—or used to have in Merkel—is excellent pragmatists? Our conversation naturally touches on the former Chancellor’s geopolitical legacy since the Ukraine war, but also China and the economy. It is timed with the release of her memoir, Freedom (1954-2021). We are delighted to have with us two distinguished journalists, Guy Chazan of the Financial Times and Tom Nuttall of The Economist.

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on whatever platform you use, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by email at [email protected]. Consider supporting the show through Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod), although this time the full episode will be available to all listeners.

"The Treaty includes no provisions for the economic rehabilitation of Europe, nothing to make the defeated Central Empires into good neighbours, nothing to stabilise the new States of Europe." This damning critique of one of history's best-known peace treaties by a little-known UK Treasury official keeps shaping popular understandings of the accord's legacy. John Maynard Keynes published The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) during the Paris Peace Conference, painting its chief outcome, the Treaty of Versailles, as not just flawed, but a harbinger of yet more conflict. The Carthaginian peace terms imposed on Germany, Keynes argued, augured revenge.

But is this the full story? Were the treaty's consequences as dire as Keynes suggested, or has the economist's indictment, seemingly prophetic in retrospective terms, overshadowed key dynamics that played out during negotiations, but are now forgotten? To delve into this complex history, we are joined by two distinguished guests: historian Margaret MacMillan, the author of Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War (2001), and veteran French diplomat and former guest on the podcast Gérard Araud, who is very familiar with the intricacies of such international negotiations and the author of Nous Étions Seuls (2023), a history of French diplomacy between both world wars.

The episode explores the treaty's immediate and longer-term consequences, how it aimed to reshape Europe, and why it remains one of the most misunderstood agreements in modern history. Did the treaty plant the seeds of World War II, or has its popular critique left out some important context?

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on whatever platform you use, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by email at [email protected]. Consider supporting the show through Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod) to get access to the full episode, where we dive deeper into the intricate details of Versailles and its repercussions.

Bibliography:

• The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), by John Maynard Keynes.
• Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War (2001), by Margaret MacMillan.
• Nous étions seuls: une histoire diplomatique de la France 1919-1939 (2023), by Gérard Araud.

What France has just lived through can only be described by the words of Vladimir Lenin: “there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen”.

In just a month, the country's political landscape was upended by Emmanuel Macron’s shock decision to dissolve the National Assembly after his party, Ensemble, trailed behind the right-populist Rassemblement National by seventeen points in elections to the European Parliament on June 9th.

In the week that followed, the left managed to unite once again, as in the 1930s Front Populaire, despite having spent the European race trading barbs. The Gaullist centre-right imploded, with Éric Ciotti, the leader of Les Républicains, calling on his party's candidates to either support or be supported by Le Pen's, while most of the bigwigs opposing him in-house attempted to remove him, usurp the Twitter account from his faction—and shut him off the party's headquarters.

In the midst of that chaos, Macron’s very own allies were gobsmacked by a decision that could have eradicated not just the government's ability to rule, but their own parliamentary standing. Yet while the campaign was marked by the possibility of a Rassemblement National government led by the 28-year-old Jordan Bardella, the party has been met by a barrage of tactical voting against its candidates in Sunday's runoff. Whereas it stunningly surpassed the one-third (33%) mark in the first round, its parliamentary group, after the biasing effect of local a non-proportional voting system, will be of 143 MPs, up from 89 but far lower than initially forecasted.

This legislative snap race leaves Parliament in an unruly state, with three roughly equal blocs: the left, the centrists and the nationalists—none of them especially keen to make compromises. So what happened, and where do we go from here? This week, we ask Mij Rahman (Eurasia Group) and François Hublet (Groupe d'Études Géopolitiques) to walk us through the French chaos.

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on whatever platform you use, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at [email protected]. And please consider supporting the show on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod) to get access to the full episode, where we talk in further detail about the drivers of the ever-increasing Le Pen vote.

Welcome to another Decency Deep Dive. This week we tackle the forthcoming European Parliament (EP) elections on June 9, widely expected to deliver a significantly more right-wing supranational legislature. Russia’s ongoing efforts to intrude into the news cycle, public debate and imaginary of Western societies are on the agenda, too, as we address its recent efforts at disinformation and lobbying. Finally, as Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez ups the ante of its effort to smear the country's press, its judges and the entire opposition, we ponder where goes Spain next.

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on Apple Podcasts, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at [email protected]. And please consider supporting the show through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod.

“I think it is obvious that NATO's expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the alliance itself, or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?”

That was Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. This speech encapsulates Putin's long-simmering critique of the West and his framing of NATO's expansion as a form of provocation. It is often pointed to, today, as the beginning of Putin's foreign policy that led to the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Some in the West, most notably Tucker Carlson, have swallowed this argument hook, line and sinker—and continue to repeat it today. 

In this week's episode, we spoke to Michael C. Kimmage, Chair of the History Department at Catholic University of America (CUA) and author of Collisions (2024), a new book with Oxford University Press that documents the build-up to all-out war between Russia and Ukraine. In his book, and in our discussion today, Kimmage takes us through the key moments that led to the invasion of February 2022.

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on whatever platform you use, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at [email protected]. We’re also continuing our giveaway of the "How to Win Brexit" board game to our patreons, so sign up today for a chance to win one. Thank you, and we hope you enjoy this episode!

Bibliography:

• Collisions: The Origins of the War in Ukraine and the New Global Instability (2024): https://global.oup.com/academic/product/collisions-9780197751794?cc=us&lang=en&.

“Day by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon us; day by day we are becoming more subservient to them; more men are daily bound down as slaves to tend them, more men are daily devoting the energies of their whole lives to the development of mechanical life. The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants”. Samuel Butler wrote those words in the mid-19th century in his essay Darwin Among the Machines (1863). The somewhat satirical essay calls for the total destruction of all machines to save humanity from inevitable subservience to them.

Starting with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, science fiction writing often fixes upon the fear that machines will surpass us, replace us, and even enslave us. Terminator, Mass Effect, The Matrix, and Blade Runner all deal with this existential fear. Now that AI has arrived in a mass use format through ChatGPT and Gemini, lawmakers around the globe are rushing to regulate this technology to prevent abuse while still enabling innovation. The EU has jumped out ahead in trying to regulate artificial intelligence and is hoping that its regulatory power will help set global standards for AI use; but will it?

To discuss this complex and serious topic, we invited Ian Bremmer, Founder and President of the Eurasia Group, and Anu Bradford Professor of Law at Columbia University and author of The Brussels Effect (2020), and Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology (2023).

This episode was made available in full length for all listeners but if you’d like to get the full length version of other episodes, you can join our Patreon for as little as 5 EUR a month. As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on whatever platform you use, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at [email protected]. Thank you and we hope you enjoy this episode.

Bibliography:

• The Brussels Effect (2020): https://academic.oup.com/book/36491.
• Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technologies (2023): https://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-empires-9780197649268.
• The Age of Spiritual Machines (1863): https://penguinrandomhousehighereducation.com/book/?isbn=9780140282023.
• Dune (1965): https://www.amazon.com/Dune-Frank-Herbert/dp/0441172717.

"You didn't pay? You're delinquent? No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them—Russia—to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay!" In February, former—and possibly future—US President Donald J. Trump launched a spine-chilling injunction to America’s allies in the sheer style of a New York City mob boss. If you'd like to enjoy the blessings of NATO membership, pay up or face the consequences. Trump’s comments constitute a significant break with settled policy precedent. America has provided a powerful “security umbrella” to most of Europe since at least 1948, but this could well be under threat from America First 2.0. This week, we cared to explore if Europe would be able to hold on its own two feet without American backing. How strong are the Europeans without the Americans, and has the old continent upped its military-industrial capacity since the Ukraine war? We are joined by Shashank Joshi, defense editor at The Economist, and Bruno Tertrais, Deputy Director at the Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique and recently the author of Pax Atomica (2024).

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on whatever platform you use and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at [email protected]. And please consider supporting the show through Patreon to get access to the full episode where we talk in further detail about nuclear policy: https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod.

And here's something special for you this week: do you love the intersection of strategy and diplomacy? Do you think you could have secured a better Brexit deal for the UK? Well, "How to Win Brexit" is the brilliant board game that allows you to relitigate the wars over Britain's departure from the EU and roleplay as the French President or the British Prime Minister. Whether you’re a political enthusiast, a board game fanatic, or both, this game should be up your alley. Great news for our patrons: we will be distributing two sets over the next two weeks, so if you’re on the fence, you might want to join us now!

China might be the world’s factory, but America remains the earth’s cultural hegemon. And perhaps its greatest export of the last decade has been “wokeism” or “wokeness”. Once inhabiting the fringiest recesses of American academia, the past decade has seen the global dissemination of concepts like "cultural appropriation", "systemic racism", "critical race theory", "intersectionality"—and they haven't spared Europe. Thus, our aim this week is to take the time to define wokeism, explore the concept from its roots in critical theory to its manifestations in contemporary discourse, dissect the complex tapestry of its adjacent theoretical constructs, and explore how it has sparked explosive conversations on both sides of the Atlantic. We are joined by Yascha Mounk, a German intellectual, founder of Persuasion Magazine, and the author of numerous books including his latest, The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time (2023). On the other side of the line, we are joined by Pierre Valentin. He is—as some of you might have guessed—François' brother, but most importantly, the author of Comprendre la Révolution Woke (2023), another effort towards "Understanding the Woke Revolution".

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on whatever platform you use, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at [email protected]. And please consider supporting the show through Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod) to get access to the full episode, where we talk in further detail about France and “le wokisme”, wondering whether we have reached “peak woke".

Welcome to another Decency Deep Dive. This week we tackle various topics on the heels of the Munich Security Conference, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged the world to re-anchor security at the heart of global politics. Ukraine's defense pacts with France and Germany are on the agenda, as is Donald J. Trump's earth-shattering remark that he wouldn't budge the moment Russia were to move in against a NATO ally with a chronic record of underspending on defense. Finally, the unleashing of Israel's ground invasion around Rafah prompts us to think about the longer-term prospects for peace in the Middle East.

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on Apple Podcasts, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at [email protected]. And please consider supporting the show through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod.

“The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.”

Former German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s advice seems to have resonated with an entire generation of German leaders in the 21st century, from the Social-Democrat Gerhard Schroder to the CDU's Angela Merkel. For years, Germany built its economic ties with Russia, but also simultaneously its dependence on Vladimir Putin’s increasingly authoritarian and militaristic regime. A German illusion that crashed somewhere in the fields of Ukraine in February 2022.

But Germany is not the only European heavyweight to have indulged itself with these Russian illusions. Across the Rhine, several French presidents, of all political stripes, have also attempted to build ties with Russia in the name of France’s strategic interests. With mixed results at best.

Today we try to understand these Franco-German illusions and their consequences. We are joined by Guy Chazan, Berlin bureau chief at the Financial Times, and Sylvie Kauffmann, columnist for Le Monde and author of Les Aveuglés (2023), a brilliant book on today’s topic! 

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on the platform of your choice and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at [email protected]. And please consider supporting the show through Patreon to get access to the full episode where we talk in further detail about France and the vindication of Polish fears: https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod.

In 1789, members of the newly-created National Assembly in Paris split between those for whom the king should retain an absolute veto, sitting to the Assembly President's right, and those who thought he shouldn't, sitting to his left. The primordial version of our structuring political cleavage was born: the party of order vs. the party of progress. This left-right divide has served as the founding metaphor of modern European politics. More than two centuries later, many are penning the obituary of that division. In 2017, the election of Emmanuel Macron against Marine le Pen seemed to usher a new cleavage, loosely defined as open vs. closed by some, nationalist vs. globalist or liberal vs. authoritarian by others. But is the left-right divide of yore buried just yet? Today we take stock of the evolving morphology of political fractures and map the main cleavages dividing European politics. With us this week: Francois Hublet, of Le Grand Continent, and the University of Manchester's Rob Ford, co-author of Brexitland (2020) and Senior Fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe (UKICE) network.

As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on Apple Podcasts or the platform of your choice, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at [email protected]. And please consider supporting the show through Patreon, where you can access the full episode including an extra section where our guests discuss the forthcoming EU elections: https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod.