Podcasts about great powers

Brendan Simms is Professor of the History of International Relations at the University of Cambridge and the author of The Return of the Great Powers. He challenges the widespread belief that Britain is in terminal decline, arguing that the UK remains one of the world's four true Great Powers.In the main episode, Brendan explained why Britain's resources, global reach, reputation and resilience still give it significant international influence. He also argued that great power politics has returned as the dominant force shaping global affairs.In this special Q&A, Brendan answers your questions on what steps Britain needs to take to stay relevant, whether its military is fit for purpose, and whether our soft power is overlooked.- WhatsApp: 0330 123 9480  - Email: radical@bbc.co.ukEpisodes of Radical are released every Thursday and Monday.Series Producer: Rufus Gray Producers: Nathan Gower and Ivana Davidovic Digital Producer: Joe Wilkinson Technical Producer: Jonny Baker Senior News Editor: Sam Bonham

Is Great Britain really still great? Is it in decline, or has the UK underestimated its own status in the world?In his latest book The Return of the Great Powers, Brendan Smith, Professor of the History of International Relations at the University of Cambridge, challenges one of the most deeply rooted current assumptions in British public life and argues that the UK is still a significant player on the world stage.While much of the national conversation focuses on economic stagnation, geopolitical uncertainty and the fading legacy of empire, Simms argues that the UK remains one of only four true Great Powers in the world today, alongside the United States, China and Russia.Drawing on a framework of resources, reach, reputation and resilience, he joins Radical to make the case that Britain retains many of the characteristics that define global power: a strong economy, worldwide diplomatic influence, significant military capabilities and an overseas presence that allows it to project influence far beyond its shores.Sophia Smith Galer hosts this week, and find out why Brendan Simms believes that great power politics has returned as the dominant force shaping international affairs. What does it mean to be a Great Power in the 21st century? Does Britain still belong at the top table? And how the growing rivalry between the US and China is reshaping the global order?- WhatsApp: 0330 123 9480  - Email: radical@bbc.co.ukEpisodes of Radical are released every Thursday and Monday.Series Producer: Rufus Gray Producers: Nathan Gower and Ivana Davidovic Digital Producer: Joe Wilkinson Technical Producer: Jonny Baker Senior News Editor: Sam Bonham

For more information: https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/greenland-belle-of-the-ball-with Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

August 9, 2026 Special meeting message #4 from Pastor Jeff Colón Website: www.lighthouseontherockky.org Facebook: https://facebook.com/lotrchurch

The Temple Comes to Samaria Acts 8:4-25 by William Klock Remember back in Chapter 5, when Peter and John were arrested and brought before the priests and elders, and Gamaliel, one of the leading Pharisees, told his fellow council members: “Leave them alone.  If what they're doing is of human origin, it will come to ruin.  But if it's from God, you won't be able to stop them.  You might even be found to be fighting against God.”  They let Peter and John go that day, but since then they haven't been heeding Gamaliel's advice.  They stoned Stephen.  And at the end of last week's text Luke told us that Saul of Tarsus was going house to house, dragging men and women to prison and that, while the apostles remained in Jerusalem, everyone else was scattered through Jerusalem and Samaria.  And it turns out Gamaliel was right.  Neither Saul nor anyone else could stop what God was doing.  This new temple, not made with hands, not made of bricks and mortar, but instead of people, purified by the blood of Jesus and indwelt themselves by God's Spirit, this temple was going to fill the earth.  Persecution won't stop it.  Just the opposite, in fact.  Luke writes in Acts 8:4 [Page 1089 in the pew Bibles]: “Those who were scattered went all over the place announcing the word.”  These were people who knew, first hand, the transforming power of the gospel.  Many of them had been eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus.  They had seen signs and wonders, done by Jesus and then done by the apostles.  They knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that God was at work and Israel's hopes were being fulfilled.  There was no stopping them.  If they had to flee Jerusalem, so much the better.  Now the good news about Jesus would be proclaimed all over the place.  Think back to Stephen's speech before the Sanhedrin and how he'd highlighted how God works through rejection and persecution.  Joseph's brothers had sold him as a slave, but through their evil God delivered his people.  Ditto with Moses.  Pharaoh wanted all the baby boys of the Hebrews drowned, so Moses' mother put him in a basket and Providence floated him down the river right to Pharaoh's daughter.  And Jesus, the supreme example: The forces of evil and death rose up to do their worst in killing Jesus, but in doing so they played right into God's hands.  They concentrated themselves all in one place, in one great act, allowing Jesus to rise from death to conquer them.  So Saul of Tarsus, threatening the church?  God's going to use that to—to get the gospel out of Jerusalem, to all of Judaea—and even to Samaria. So Philip.  You remember Philip?  He was one of the seven in Chapter 6, whom the church chose and laid hands on to do the work that was taking the apostles away from their prayer and preaching.  Stephen was another of them.  When the church calls people and lays hands on them and commissions them to be servants of the gospel, there's no telling where that may lead.  So “Philip,” says Luke in verse 5, “went off to a town in Samaria and announced the Messiah to them.” I suspect no one would have thought—or wanted—to take the gospel to Samaria—at least not for a long time—even though Jesus had said that his church would take the gospel there.  But in the context of Acts, I think Luke wants to stress that even more than taking the gospel to Samaria, what Philip is doing is taking the temple there.  And that's pretty significant.  Samaria was the piece of land between the two Jewish territories, between Judaea in the south and Galilee in the north.  The Samaritans were the people who had lived there while the Jews were off in exile in Babylon.  We don't really know for certain the origins of the Samaritans.  They claimed—and they still claim, as they're still there to this day—that they're the descendants of what was left of the northern Israelite tribes after the nation was destroyed by the Assyrians.  The Jews claimed that the Samaritans were the people resettled in the land by the Babylonians after they'd sent the Jewish people into exile.  There's probably some truth to both.  Whatever the case, the Samaritans followed their own form of Judaism.  They had their own version of the torah, of the first five books of the Old Testament.  They rejected the Prophets and other books.  They looked forward to their own version of the Messiah.  They called him the Ta'eb or “The Returner”—the prophet Moses promised would come.  But maybe what's most important in the context of Acts, was that the Samaritans had their own temple on Mt. Gerizim.  The Jews would never let them anywhere near the temple in Jerusalem—they weren't real Jews and they had corrupted Israelite religion—but even if the Jews allowed them into the temple, the Samaritans would never go there.  As far as they were concerned, theirs was the real temple.  The Samaritans were a people utterly without God's presence. And now Philip finds his way there and carries the for real real temple to a people who didn't even know the old one.  And when God's temple arrives in Samaria, the people can't help but notice.  Verse 6: “The crowds, acting as one, clung to what Philip was saying, as they heard him and saw the signs he performed.  For unclean spirits came out of many of them, and several who were paralyzed or lame were cured.  So there was great joy in that town.” “But there was a man named Simon, who had lived in the town for some while and who practiced magic. He used to astonish the Samaritan people, giving out that he was some great personage.  Everyone, small and great alike, paid attention to him, and said, “This man is the one called ‘God's Great Power'!”  [Luke might be hinting that the people thought of Simon as maybe being the Ta'eb, the Samaritan “Messiah”.] They had been under his spell for some time, since they were amazed at the magic he could perform.  But when they believed Philip as he was announcing to them the message about God's kingdom and the name of Jesus the Messiah, they were baptized, men and women alike.  Simon too believed and was baptized, paying close attention to Philip.  When he saw signs, and great and powerful deeds, it was his turn to be astonished.” The devil was doing one thing in Judaea in a futile attempt to quash the gospel.  He was doing something else to the same end in Samaria.  He'd been doing it for a long time, leading the Samaritans away from God's torah and God's temple.  Now there's this man, Simon, who has enchanted these Samaritans with his magic.  Maybe it was just sleight of hand magic, but the way Luke, throughout Acts, contrasts magic with the power of the Holy Spirit, it seems like Simon actually did have some kind of power and if that power wasn't from God, it was coming from demonic forces of some kind.  That's just the sort of thing the devil would do to lead people astray.  But Philip, empowered by God's Spirit, it's obvious to everyone—even to Simon—his power was different and it was far superior.  Seeing it, these people believed the good news about Jesus that Philip was proclaiming.  And they did what believers do: they were baptised.  Like Israel following God through the Red Sea and into the promised land, in faith these Samaritan followed Jesus through the waters of baptism and into God's new creation. Samaritans embracing and giving their allegiance to Jesus may not seem like a big deal to us, but it was a really big deal to everyone involved.  Again, Samaritans and Jews didn't mix.  Even though Jesus had said that his disciples would take the good news to Samaria, they had no plan to go there—and probably little or no desire to.  But God had a plan to get them there, and when Philip does end up in Samaria, he doesn't let that hold him back.  It's pretty clear that these early believers thought of the gospel as something for Jews, but—hey—if gentiles came to them and wanted in, if Samaritans heard and believed, that was great.  They saw God at work in these people, even if these people weren't their evangelistic priority. And yet, something odd happens.  These Samaritans hear the gospel, see God at work, they believe, they're baptised, but there's something missing.  I suspect Philip noticed it immediately and sent word back to Jerusalem—excited on one hand, but concerned on the other.  Verse 14: “When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received God's word, they sent Peter and John to them.  When they arrived, they prayed for them, asking that they would receive the Holy Spirit, since up to that point the Spirit had come upon none of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.  Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” Like I said, something was missing.  The Spirit was clearly at work.  Faith in Jesus is a gift of the Spirit and no one comes to Jesus without the Spirit first moving in the heart.  But so far in Acts, when people believed and were baptised, they all had some kind of experience of being transformed by the Spirit  They were obviously different.  The Spirit did a work of new creation in them.  And they typically—and immediately—displayed supernatural gifts.  Some prophesied, some healed, some spoke in other languages, and so on.  Whenever we see God doing something new in the story of redemption, it's usually got miracles clustered all around it and we see this no less in the early days of the church.  Bringing Samaritans to Jesus was very much something new.  But this time the miracles didn't happen.  I expect Philip was surprised.  What was wrong?  So he sent word to Jerusalem and Peter and John decided to go see for themselves.  And, sure enough, something was missing.  These people had believed, but the Spirit—God—hadn't yet come to live in them  They were not yet part of the new temple. I don't know if Peter and John understood everything at this point.  I suspect that they just recognised that these new believers were lacking the indwelling Spirit.  It was weird and inexplicable at the time.  And so Peter and John just did the only thing that made sense: they laid their hands on these people and prayed that God would give them his Spirit.  And God did.  Luke doesn't say how it was obvious, but it was apparently obvious that the Spirit had filled the Samaritans.  And I think as time passed, Peter and John and the others started to figure out what God was doing in withholding the very thing—I should say, the very person—who fulfils God's promises to dwell with his people.  By the time Luke wrote, it all made perfect sense. You see, there was always a danger that the Samaritans would hear the gospel and believe, but that because of the divide between them and the Jews, the Samaritans would end up with a separate church of their own.  A lot of them would have been perfectly happy to have it that way and plenty of Jewish believers would no doubt be happy to have it that way.  But that would undermine the very gospel itself.  God doesn't have multiple people.  He has one.  With all our divisions in the church today, it's easy to forget this, but Jesus was clear: God has one people and one of the essentials of the gospel is that it heals the breaches, heals the divisions, heals the animosity between the people of the world.  We saw the first dramatic sign of this healing at Pentecost as the men there heard the gospel proclaimed in their own languages.  It was a dramatic reversal of the Tower of Babel episode.  And now it happens with the Samaritans.  God withholds his Spirit from them in order to get Peter and John to pray and lay hands on them and in that God makes it clear to everyone that they are all united in Jesus and the Spirit.  The apostles and the Jewish believers can't dismiss the Samaritan believers and neither can the Samaritans—with their long history of doing their own thing and having their own temple—neither can they act as if they have no need of or can be separate from the Jewish believers. We need to be careful we don't mistake Luke's point here.  We often read this passage at confirmations when the bishop lays hands on us and prays for us to be strengthened by the Holy Spirit.  But Luke wasn't thinking about confirmation.  Confirmation is a rite that developed centuries later.  Pentecostals and Charismatics use this passage to explain their experience, arguing that this passage proves that receiving the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace apart from baptism and conversion.  But that's not Luke's point either.  In fact, his point is that what happened with the Samaritans, with God withholding the Spirit, was unique—a one-off thing—that was necessary to ensure everyone knew that there is one church, one body and that our unity in diversity is one of the gospel's most powerful witnesses to God setting the human race to rights.  The whole thing that made this episode stand out was the delay in the Samaritans receiving the Holy Spirit, because the indwelling of the Spirit it not a second blessing or a second work of grace.  It's what happens when we believe and are baptised.  It's what makes us God's temple.  Jesus purifies us so that the Spirit can fill us. And then Simon the Magician. The gospel goes to a new place, but the same old problem comes up again.  In Jerusalem it was Ananias and Sapphira.  The devil crept in.  They let their love of money compromise the purity so essential to being God's temple.  They serve as a warning: Jesus purifies us so that we can be God's temple, but to remain God's temple requires continued purity.  And now the Samaritan believers their own warning about this.  Verse 18: “When Simon saw that the spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money.  “Give me this power too,” he said, “so that anyone I lay my hands on will receive the holy spirit.”  “May your silver die with you!” retorted Peter. “Did you really think that God's gift could be bought with money?  You have no part or share in this word!  Your heart is not straight before God.  So repent from this wickedness, and pray to the Lord.  Perhaps he will forgive the scheme you had in your heart.  I can see that you are still stuck in the bitter poison and chains of unrighteousness.”  “Pray to the Lord for me,” said Simon in reply, “that none of what you've said will happen to me.”  After Peter and John had finished bearing witness and speaking the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, announcing the good news to many Samaritan villages.” Simon liked the status his magic gave him.  And now he sees something really amazing, something that clearly and dramatically upstaged whatever it was that he was doing.  And Simon wanted it.  But it wasn't so much the Holy Spirit that Simon wanted.  Tricks were nice.  He'd been doing them for a long time.  But what Simon wanted was the ability to control people.  He didn't want the Holy Spirit.  He wanted what he thought Peter and John had: he wanted the ability to lay hands on people and to give them the Spirit. And in that, Simon was exposed.  It wasn't about Jesus for Simon.  It wasn't about being God's temple.  It wasn't about being purified by the cross.  It wasn't about being part of God's new creation.  Simon was still firmly part of the old.  He wanted to use and control people for his own personal gain and prestige.  His old magic had been upstaged.  No one would be impressed by it anymore.   But if he could be like Peter and John, if he could lay hands on people himself and impart the Spirit to them, well, then he's be back on top of things.  For those who read The Magician's Nephew this month, he's like Uncle Andrew, seeing a new world being miraculously born around him and new life sprouting from the ground, and all he can think of is bring bits of iron to plant so they can grow into factories and battleships to make him rich. He was blind.  He heard the gospel.  He heard the good news about Jesus.  He saw the life the Spirit in these people and he saw new creation being born.  But he wasn't interested any of it.  He just wanted to be in control.  He saw it as a way to get rich.  So he offers to buy this gift from Peter and John—as if it was theirs to sell.  As if it was their power to impart the Spirit. But Peter and John had no such power.  They didn't go around laying hands on people and giving them the Spirit any more than a modern-day Anglican bishop or Pentecostal evangelist does so.  This was a unique situation.  God gives the Spirit, not men, not preachers, not bishops, not even apostles.  This was simply a case in which it was necessary for both the Jews and the Samaritans to understand that they were one people in Jesus and the Spirit. The crazy thing is that we still see this sort of thing despite all the warnings in scripture.  There are far too many people out there, preachers—people calling themselves “apostles”—offering the Spirit or his gifts for money, as if those gifts are the work of human beings and not God.  I expect that when Simon asked Peter and John to sell him this gift—one they didn't even actually have—Peter immediately remembered Ananias and then Sapphira falling dead at his feet.  Because he knew, this false idea needed to die.  If allowed to fester, it would corrupt the church. And so he rebuked Simon—who, by God's mercy isn't struck dead on the spot.  “You're no believer, Simon.  You're still stuck in the bitter poison and chains of unrighteousness.” Luke tells us that Simon asked them to pray for him so that he wouldn't fall under God's judgement.  I have to wonder if they told him about Ananias and Sapphira and left him quaking in his boots.  Luke doesn't tell us what happened to him, whether he eventually understood and actually believed the gospel or not.  What Luke wants to stress here, what we shouldn't lose of, is that the Spirit is not under human control.  The Holy Spirit isn't magic.  Magic is the human attempt to manipulate God.  Humans have been trying to figure out ways to do that ever since our fall.  Magic treats God like a vending machine.  Push B5 to get this or push D2 to get that.  Say this spell, offer this sacrifice—follow the right formula and you can control the divine.  The so-called “Prosperity Gospel” is a modern version of this.  But you don't have to be into the Prosperity Gospel or the Word-Faith movement to be guilty of thinking you can control God.  When we bargain with God, we're doing the same thing.  We think that if we offer God this or that, we obligate him to give us something in return.  Brothers and Sisters, God's been teaching his people from the beginning that he doesn't work this way.  He's sovereign.  He sends his Spirit as a mighty rushing wind and, as Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Those who are born of that Spirit are blown along with it.”  Those who surrender themselves to Jesus and the Spirit are blown into purity, blown into holiness, blown into godliness, blown into ministry and blown into mission.  That's what Luke shows us in Acts.  Jesus purifies us, the Spirit fills, and in those acts God make us his living temple.  A temple through which he will make himself known and through which he will eventually fill the earth with his presence. In this morning's Collect we asked the Lord to teach to us to ask for the things that please him.  Brothers and Sisters, if we understand ourselves to be his temple, his working model of new creation in the midst of the old, I can hardly think of a better prayer.  It's a prayer very much like “on earth as in heaven”.  A prayer that sets aside our own agendas and ask for God to bring us into his.  I'd like to close praying that Collect again. Let your merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of your humble servants; and, that we may obtain what we ask of you, teach us to ask for those things that please you, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.  Amen.

Elliott Mondry returns to 22 Panels to discuss comics law. Brit Payne sits second chair. -346- -910- -67- -30-

Bleary-eyed, scrambled, and in need of a second overpriced venti black coffee, Jonah Goldberg speaks with Brendan Simms, a Cambridge Don-guy who wears fancy belts, about his new book, Return of the Great Powers, which discusses how the Russia-Ukraine war sparked how the Russia-Ukraine War prompted the West to act, China's potential defeat if Russia loses, Trump as a mob boss, and technology as a driver of cultural change.  Show Notes: —Brendan Simms: Return of the Great Powers —Brendan Simms: Donald Trump: The Making of a Worldview —Francis Fukuyama: The End of History and the Last Man —Simms' About Page The Remnant is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including the Saturday Ruminant, audio versions of all our articles and newsletters, and Jonah's twice-weekly G-File—⁠click here⁠. Instructions on how to set up your members-only feed can be found here, and if you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The US National Guard is closely tied to the C2 transformation programmes of the US Army; as their strategic and operational reserve there is no alternative. Yet the other missions of the National Guard - whether responses to pandemics, civil unrest, or natural disasters - have different priorities to meeting and destroying the enemy. Lt Gen (rtd) Jon Jensen, 22ndDirector of the National Guard, talks about those tensions, the ethos of mission and purpose, the funding for major change programmes, and how the US National Guard will adapt to the C2 challenges of the future. General Jensen's focus on people and process rather than technology and systems is refreshing and eye opening. The US National Guard will be challenged by the frictions in establishing a single C2 system that covers both the US Army National Guard (as part of the US Army) and the US Air National Guard (working under the USAF) but the legacy of Jon Jensen as Director should minimise tension and maximise effectiveness. Not a bad way to end 41 years of service. Lt Gen Jon Jensen has recently retired after more than four decades of service, culminating in 28 months as the 22ndDirector of the Army National Guard, a job that guided the formation, development, and implementation of all programs and policies affecting nearly 335,0000 soldiers in 50 states, 3 territories, and the District of Columbia. Jon joined the Iowa state guard in 1982 as a combat medic and went on to become an NCO before becoming an officer. This was, of course, the Cold War and the last period of Great Power competition. Since then, Jon experienced the Guard through Counter Terror missions and Counter Insurgency during the Global War of Terror, as well as the domestic demands of pandemic, civil unrest, and natural disasters. Before his role as Director, Jon served as the 31st Adjutant General of Minnesota and earlier, as Commanding General of the Minnesota National Guard's 34th Infantry Division. He also was dual-hatted as Deputy Commander and Army Reserve Component Integration Adviser, U.S. Army Africa and Southern European Task Force, U.S. Africa Command. He has commanded at the company, battalion, brigade and division levels. His operational assignments include operations DESERT SPRING in Kuwait, JOINT FORGE in Bosnia Herzegovina in SFOR14, and IRAQI FREEDOM, twice. The Disclaimer: Views expressed here do not represent those of the US National Guard, the US Department of Defense/Department of War, or any other institution.

Meredith McClaren returns to 22 Panels to discuss Meat Eaters, traveling the world, and more!

Though we willingly walked in the way of this ungodly world doing what the devil and we ourselves wanted, God extends His mercy toward us because He loves us and knows we are helplessly entrapped in our own snare.

Molly McKew (writer and lecturer on Russian influence and information warfare) joins host Ron Steslow to examine how Ukraine's widening reach is bringing the war home to Russia and what a defeated Russia could become.  They begin with the war's new geography: strikes that have idled a quarter of Russia's refining capacity, and drones now reaching the Caspian corridor between Russia and Iran.  Next, they trace Ukraine's rise from scrappy insurgent to serious power, erasing Russian sanctuary and moving to the center of Europe's security future. Then they examine The Economist's profile of oligarch Andrey Melnichenko, who warns against breaking Russian sovereignty and sketches four dangerous futures for a defeated Russia.   Finally, they confront what holding Russia responsible would truly require.  In Politicology+, they take stock of Sen. Lindsey Graham's death and what his absence means for the Republican Party's fading support for Ukraine. POLITICOLOGY+ Not yet a Politicology+ member? Don't miss all the extra episodes on the private, ad-free version of this podcast. Upgrade now at politicology.com/plus. Check out Great Power: https://www.greatpower.us/ Read The Economist's coverage of Andrey Melnichenko: https://bit.ly/4x5YvDk SPONSORS & PROMO CODES: https://bit.ly/44uAGZ8 Send your questions and ideas to podcast@politicology.com Ron Steslow on X: https://x.com/RonSteslow Molly McKew on X: https://x.com/MollyMcKew Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"Spiderman: Brand New Day" hits theaters today, and we want to know - who is your favorite actor to play Spiderman? Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, or Tom Holland? That's the Hot Topic, plus an all-new 2nd Date Update, Normal or Nope, and a review from Jake the Movie Guy!

CBR's Sean O'Connell joins Bo and Beth to shares his thoughts on the newest Spider-Man movie and the upcoming releases of Avengers: Doomsday and Dune Part Three.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Emil Wilson joins Tad to discuss his upcoming graphic novel Nightengales.

Most people want their lives to matter, but many aren't sure where to start. What if God has already given you everything you need to make a lasting impact? This Sunday, discover the unique "power" God has placed in your life and how to use it to serve others, fulfill your purpose, and make a difference as our God on Film series concludes with Spider-Man: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.

Ben and Rob shoot their webs all over 2007 to dissect the $258 million fever dream that is Sam Raimi's Spider Man 3, the movie that had four villains, a jazz club, an emo dance number, and somehow still wasn't the strangest thing Sam Raimi did that decade.We trace the making of this notoriously overstuffed threequel, from studio pressure to cramming in Venom, to Topher Grace's freakish, some may say gimpy, get up, to the reshoots and the runtime battles. Starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Topher Grace and Thomas Haden Church, Spider Man 3 follows Peter Parker as fame goes to his head, an alien goo goes to his hair, and Harry, Eddie and Flint Marko all queue up to ruin his week.Behind-the-scenes facts, the movie's "logic" (we use that word generously), and the eternal question of how a man can walk down the street snapping his fingers and still be the scariest version of himself in the entire franchise. All facts fully, undoubtedly researched... mostly.And finally... what does it really mean?!CONSUUUME to find out all this and much, much more!PLUS we have a Patreon with EXCLUSIVE content just for you starting at less than £2 a month - Click the link below!Find us on your socials of choice at www.linktr.ee/everymovieeverpodcast

Katie Skelly joins 22 Panels to discuss her new book Heaven and more!

Trump's speech to the nation claiming that China stole the election from him is a farce, and an excuse to use the power of the state against his political enemies. Dr. Van Jackson warned about this in the 2025 book The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy. What's bringing back the repression politics of the Cold War. And what Marco Rubio's 60-nation meeting manufacturing the fake threat of "far-left terrorism" is itself a threat of repression politics.  Subscribe to the Un-Diplomatic Newsletter: https://www.un-diplomatic.com/  Watch Un-Diplomatic Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@un-diplomaticpodcast  Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the individuals and not of any institutions

Mark Mosedale and Si Smith join 22 Panels to discuss their outstanding new graphic novel Gigs.

Chris Schweizer returns to 22 Panels to discuss the first volume of his new Appalachian inspired swashbuckling epic - Outlaw's Apprentice: Broken Blade. Now funding via Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schweizer/outapp1

Brendan Simms talks to EI's Jack Dickens about a new age of geopolitical rivalry.Image: Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. Credit: Alamy

Christof Bogacs joins 22 Panels to discuss Lex Luthor: Diabolical Genius, Earth to Chris Cleevy, and more!

Episode 400.  James B and Eddie celebrate 1600 comics, 40 years, 150K downloads and 400 episodes of Let's Read Spider-Man with 10 special guests. Sponsored by: Clones R Us Theme Music by Jeff Kenniston.  This Episode Edited by James B using Audacity and Cleanfeed.  All summaries written by Irving Forbush.  Most Sound effects and music generously provided royalty free by www.fesliyanstudios.com and https://www.zapsplat.com/  Check out all the episodes on letsreadspiderman.podbean.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Want to contribute your soundbytes to a future episode? Check out our live meetup information and join our Discord Channel here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_mW6htjJUHOzlViEvPQqR-k68tClMGAi85Bi_xrlV7w/edit

Jim Terry returns to 22 Panels to discuss his new MOVIE(!) - Shank. https://youtu.be/2b8QXqCWmcM?si=RjtoAsGsUOEhoqCr

Erica Schultz returns to 22 Panels to discuss Rat City, Gunslinger Spawn, Rogue, and more!

R. Sikoryak returns to 22 Panels to discuss his new book Declaration/Emancipation Illustrated - available now from Drawn & Quarterly.

Shelly & Philip Bond return to 22 Panels to discuss their new anthology subCULTURE: On In-Crowds and Outliers - funding now on Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sxbond/subculture

Lily & Generoso Fierro return to 22 Panels to discuss their most recent work The Interpretant and more! Find The Interpretant and Lily & Generoso's other works at: https://plasticgrapes.org

Most people want their lives to matter, but many aren't sure where to start. What if God has already given you everything you need to make a lasting impact? This Sunday, discover the unique "power" God has placed in your life and how to use it to serve others, fulfill your purpose, and make a difference as our God on Film series concludes with Spider-Man: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.

“The frontier AI companies invited the government into the room. Now the government is beginning to behave as if it owns the door, the guest list, the schedule, and the product roadmap.” — Keith Teare Last week, I was away in Europe. So Keith Teare ran our That Was The Week show solo — with a chillingly authentic Andrew Keen bot. So realistic, in fact, that the fake version sounds (to me, at least) more interesting than the real one. The bad news is that I'm back. The good news is it's been an interesting week in tech. That was the week in which the US Commerce Department told both OpenAI and Anthropic that they now need government approval for whom they can sell their frontier AI models. This is supposedly “voluntary” — for now, at least. Keith's TWTW editorial argues that Dario Amodei and Sam Altman have spent over a year crying wolf about the dangers of their own technology, supposedly deliberately seeking government involvement as a regulatory moat against competitors. And now the government has walked through the door that Sam and Dario left ajar. Now, Keith argues, the US government is behaving as if it owns not just the door and the guest list, but the entire product roadmap. “Payback's a bitch,” Keith bristles in his editorial. The other major news this week is the rumour (via David Sacks) that OpenAI has offered the US government a 50% stake in a sovereign wealth fund. If true, this would change everything — not just in Silicon Valley, but in the political debate about public ownership of our AI economy. It's not just tech insiders like Sacks and Altman who are on board the sovereign wealth fund express, but also Bernie Sanders and other leftist critics of Big Tech. So maybe payback, at least when it comes to public investment in AI, isn't always such a bitch. Five Takeaways •       The Fake Andrew Keen: An Hour of Work on a Local Nvidia Card: Keith ran last week's show solo with an AI-generated Andrew Keen: trained on a few episodes of the show, animated from a YouTube still, scripted from Keith's newsletter. No third-party service. Just a local PC with an Nvidia GPU, about an hour of work, three attempts. Andrew, listening back, second-guessed whether he was actually there. The result was “pretty bad compared to our normal actual live shows,” Keith says. But also: really good. The question hanging over this episode and every future one: which Andrew are you listening to? •       Payback's a Bitch: How AI Companies Created Their Own Regulatory Trap: The US Commerce Department has told OpenAI and Anthropic they need government permission for who gets to use their latest models. Voluntary, for now. Keith's diagnosis: AI leadership spent more than a year crying wolf about existential risk — not because they believed it, but because government regulation creates a moat against competitors. Now the government has taken them at their word. Dario and Sam Altman wanted to be wrapped in government clothing. They are. The government now owns the door. They asked for this. They got it. •       American and Chinese State Capitalism: Converging Models: Andrew raises the macro argument: what we're watching is the convergence of American and Chinese models of capitalism toward a more state-centric model. China has always been explicit about state control. America has prided itself on free enterprise — even when the internet, atomic technology, and now AI were all substantially government-funded or government-shaped. Keith agrees at this level: all governments seek to control things they frame as dangerous. The difference is the framing. The direction of travel is the same. •       OpenAI's Rumoured 50% Stake Offer to the Government: Keith has heard — from sources including David Sacks, who should know — that OpenAI has offered the US government a very large stake, potentially 50%, in a sovereign wealth fund that would then distribute dividends to citizens. Sacks is not only unsurprised but in favour: he thinks 50% is too small. Andrew's question: why would OpenAI give away 50% of the company? Keith's answer: because it's the price of the regulatory moat. The government as partner rather than the government as regulator. A company that once aspired to “open” AI is now offering the state a controlling interest in its future. •       Paul Kennedy and America's Inevitable Decline: Keith has Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers on his shelf. His conclusion from it: it is historically impossible for America to retain its first-place status. No country ever has. Newly capitalised countries produce things more cheaply; China, India, and large parts of Asia are where most future growth will be. Does the AI boom change this? Keith's honest answer: no. It may slow the decline. It will not reverse it. America will, like an older gentleman on a rocking chair outside the house, accept its fate. Europe won't even be in the rocking chair. About the Guest Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch and Andrew's regular TWTW co-host. References: •       That Was the Week by Keith Teare — the newsletter on which this episode is based. •       Azeem Azhar, The Exponential View — his report quantifying the AI economy at roughly $175 billion, referenced in the closing section. •       Alex Lazarow, 99%Tech — referenced for his piece on the emergence of an AI trust layer, the “Lloyds of AI.” •       Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers — on Keith's shelf; referenced in the America-China decline section. •       David Sacks — referenced as the source for the OpenAI sovereign wealth fund rumour. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 3,000 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:38) - Introduction: the fake Andrew Keen from last week (01:14) - Keith explains how he did it: local Nvidia card, one hour, three attempts (02:11) - The big story: Commerce Department tells OpenAI and Anthropic they need permission ...

Neorealism, neoliberalism, the fallacy of economic interdependency producing peace, the failure of international institutions to foster peace, the complexity of US-Chinese rivalry, neo-con vs neo-liber perspective of international institutions, neorealistic "pragmatism," neorealist rejection of ideology despite commitment to classical liberalism, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon, Nixon-Kissinger as the defining Cold War era realists, how realism defines Kissinger's foreign policy in China and Latin America, the importance of American hegemony in Western Hemisphere, why America has never been a serious military threat to China, the PRC's re-evaluation of the USSR's military threat, America's disastrous military showing in Asia, the foreign policy establishment's efforts to destroy Nixon and Kissinger, the parallels between Russiagate and the Moorer-Radford Affair, China lobby, neorealism's criticism of US allies, EU lobby, Israel lobby, laissez-faire & foreign lobbies as the catalyst for America's decline, unipolarity vs bipolarity vs multipolarity, US/Chinese drive for bipolarity while world desires multipolarity, America & British Empires possessing weak armies, why air power and air wars are a joke, America as the new Eastern Roman Empire, deflection, the difference between sea-based & land-based Great Powers, the neorealist desire for America to be offshore balancer, differences between neorealists and neolibs on Europe & Persian Gulf, New America, New America's early links to neorealism, New America joins the neoliberal fold, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Quincy's funding, Quincy's pros and cons, Quincy's links to Cato Institute, Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), parallels between Quincy and IPSMusic by: Keith Allen Dennishttps://keithallendennis.bandcamp.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A version of this essay was published by firstpost at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/from-indo-pacific-to-pacific-delhi-must-prepare-for-strategic-loneliness-14024528.htmlI refer, of course, to the (in)famous newspaper headline which said, “Ford to City: Drop Dead” in 1975 when then-POTUS Gerald Ford refused to bail out New York City during a financial crisis.It appears to be the same sentiment now with POTUS Trump regarding India. The end of India's fond hopes of a strategic alliance came not with a bang, but with a whimper: the Pentagon announcement, right in the middle of the G7 conclave in France, that the US has reverted its Indo-Pacific Command to the “Pacific Command”, which had been the name before Trump changed it in 2018.What this means is clear: the US has turned its back on the Indian Ocean, on India, and on the vaunted “strategic partnership” that Indian policymakers had long assumed would be a corollary of that presumed bedrock of Indo-US relations: the mutual need to contain a rampaging China.Coming on top of the remarkable cavalierness about the murders of three Indian merchant-navy sailors, and numerous other slights, we see a pattern of indifference at best, or disdain at worst. The US is signalling that they don't need India. India, in other words, has no leverage. I am not amazed, to be honest: I wrote in 2023 that in an era of relative decline, it made sense for the US to downgrade its aspirations from sole hyperpower to first among equals: that is, a “G2 condominium” with China. This is, in principle, the same as the Vatican-brokered Treaty of Torsedillas in 1494 that divided the world into Portuguese and a Spanish spheres of influence. Interestingly, that didn't end up well for either party, but we shall let that pass. Let us connect the dots: there is a ‘Donroe Doctrine' whereby the US is asserting its hegemony in the Americas, its sphere of influence. Trump has ejected China from Venezuela, and is in the process of kicking them out of the Panama Canal zone; although the Pacific-to-Atlantic railway project in the Brazilian rainforest, and its terminus, the deep-water Port Chancay in Peru, remain.The disastrous Trump foray into Iran was predicated on denying China easy access to that country's hydrocarbons. But the MoU after 100+ days of war suggests that the US has received a bloody nose, and is withdrawing, retired hurt. The shrinking of ambitions away from the Indian Ocean as in the reversion to the ‘Pacific Command' suggests that the US is ceding the continent, including West Asia, to China.America-watchers have noticed this strange attitude to Asia before. Evan A. Feigenbaum, a former advisor to US Secretaries of State, wrote about this in 2011:For Washington, the problem is at once intellectual, strategic, and bureaucratic. Intellectually, the United States still has three separate foreign policies in Asia—one for East Asia, another for South Asia, and a third for Central Asia (which it scarcely regards as a part of Asia at all). As Asia reintegrates, then, the United States is too often stuck in an outdated mode of thinking ...Asia is being reborn, and remade. Yet, the United States is badly prepared for this momentous rebirth, which is at once stitching Asia back together and making the United States less relevant in each of Asia's constituent parts. Asians are, in various ways, passing America by, restoring ancient ties and repairing long-broken strategic and economic links.Well, this is also the end of the “pivot to Asia”, even though it was probably half-hearted at the best of times. Then-POTUS Obama started using the term in 2011, but was himself guilty of ‘awarding' “South Asia” to Chinese overlordship on a visit to that country. Now that the US is dumping its European allies, it should not be surprising, in view of the ‘Fortress America' tone of the National Security Strategy of 2025, that India is also being thrown under the bus.A US official, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said this bluntly in Delhi at the Raisina Dialog 2026: India should understand that we're not going to make the same mistakes with India that we made with China 20 years ago in terms of saying oh you know we're going to let you develop all these markets and then the next thing we know you're beating us in a lot of commercial things.Landau is right from a short-term US perspective. The US blundered, presumably taken in by Chinese propaganda, and allowed itself to be stripped of its industrial prowess. They have learned a lesson: squash potential competitors when you can. This is a back-handed compliment: it suggests that the US is aware that India can be a challenger, and make the G2 a G3. India is literally the only power that's large enough to make it to Great Power status: Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, etc. have too many problems.No incumbent power wants an insurgent power to challenge its hegemony. The so-called “Thucydides Trap” predicts that chances are that they will go to war: a kinetic war or an economic war or both. India is simultaneously facing Thucydides Traps from both the US and China, those G2 buddies. I wrote about this as an “Abhimanyu Syndrome” for India: splendid isolation. I hasten to add that though Abhimanyu died, his side did win convincingly.So it's time for India to be pragmatic, and develop its own self-reliance, both in military power and economic/trade power. The existing G2 are looking for vassals, not allies. The equation between them is also interesting. It is clear that the US is in gentle relative decline; but it does have deep resources, and can survive as a continent sized economy, even if it turns its back on the rest of the world, as it has done several times in its 250-year history. But Trump did kowtow to Xi on his May trip to China: he looked like a supplicant paying tribute to the emperor.China, if you look at its 3000-year-long history, is volatile and unstable. A pattern repeats, again and again: there are periods of prosperity and power under a strong imperial center, followed by collapse and utter chaos. An unwinding of the Chinese empire, much like the implosion of the Soviet empire, is probably only a matter of time.If you look at Indian history, the nation was mostly stable, though its prosperity invited invaders. As far back as 3000 years ago, India was the center of a lucrative Indian Ocean trade, based on Pax Indica in the region. With a deep water navy, a massive manufacturing push, and self-reliance, India can regain its past glory. Military power breeds respect from others. Economic power makes others want to trade.1100 words, 18 Jun 2026AI-generated slideshow courtesy notebookLM.google.com: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

Andrew Coltrin returns with his co-conspirator ZuZu to talk more about Nerd Emergencies...And Other Misunderstandings: A Comix Showcase of Neurodivergent Perspectives. Also, we find ALL of the rabbit holes. Nerd Emergencies...And Other Misunderstandings: A Comix Showcase of Neurodivergent Perspectives is now fundraising via Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/partlyrobot/nerd-emergencies

Rev. Andy Whitaker Smith will be preaching on Luke 8:4-8.

In this episode of GREAT POWER PODCAST, host Ilan Berman talks to Dr. Colin Clarke of The Soufan Center regarding the growing sophistication of extremist groups, the Trump administration's new counterterrorism strategy, and the intersection with America's Great Power Competition with China, Russia and other powers. MATERIALS REFERENCED IN THIS EPISODE:- Colin P. Clarke, "The New Shape Of Global Jihadism," Statecraft and Strategy no. 1, Spring 2026, https://www.statecraftandstrategy.com/the-new-counterterrorism-terrain/the-new-shape-of-global-jihadism/.- Clara Broekaert and Colin P. Clarke, “The Pandemonium Narrative and Its Limits: Artificial Intelligence and the Islamic State's Innovation Pattern,” Hudson Institute Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, May 11, 2026, https://www.hudson.org/terrorism/pandemonium-narrative-its-limits-artificial-intelligence-islamic-states-innovation-clara-broekaret-colin-p-clarke. - Colin Clarke and Charlie Winter, “The Islamic State May Be Failing, but Its Strategic Communications Legacy Is Here to Stay,” War on the Rocks, August 17, 2017, https://warontherocks.com/the-islamic-state-may-be-failing-but-its-strategic-communications-legacy-is-here-to-stay/. - White House, United States Counterterrorism Strategy 2026, May 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-USCT-Strategy-1.pdf. BIO:Dr. Colin Clarke is the Executive Director of The Soufan Center. His research focuses on domestic and transnational terrorism, international security, and geopolitics.Colin previously served as the Director of Research at The Soufan Group and as a Senior Research Fellow with The Soufan Center. Prior to those roles, Clarke was a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, where he spent a decade researching terrorism, insurgency, and criminal networks. At RAND, Clarke led studies on ISIS financing, the future of terrorism and transnational crime, and lessons learned from all insurgencies since the end of World War II.

Gavin landed back in Australia just the day before recording, and he and Ken settle in for a full debrief on WDC 2026 in Athens. From the venues and the social activities to all four of Gavin's games and the top board, this one covers it all. Intro Ken sets up the episode – this one is going to be almost entirely about WDC 2026 Athens, because Gavin was there and has only just landed back in Australia (as at the time of recording) (15 secs) He notes the DBN coverage gave a strong account of the boards and Ed's player interviews, but plenty of the magic from Spyros Dovas and his organising team didn't make it to the stream (45 secs) Drinks are introduced: Ken is on one of his home-brew lagers with a kick, and Gavin is working through a leftover Sicilian Nero d'Avola that has turned a little sour – a fitting metaphor, he suggests, for how his first round went (1 min 45 secs) The tournament in aggregate Ken asks Gavin to give a broad overview – location, numbers, facilities, atmosphere (2 mins 45 secs) Around 106 players registered, though some didn't show due to last-minute issues. Approximately 5 Australian players couldn't attend because their original flights were routed through the Middle East (3 mins 30 secs) The geopolitical context: as of recording, the Middle East airspace situation was in week nine of its shutdown, forcing Australian travellers to reroute via Singapore, Hong Kong, or Malaysia. Some also baulked at the US transit option due to the documentation requirements (4 mins 30 secs) Despite the drop-outs, the turnout was excellent and genuinely representative – a heavy European component split between the UK and the rest of Europe, a strong French contingent, players from the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, and Norway, a good number of Americans and a couple of Canadians (including Chris Brand), around 10 Australians, and a couple of Kiwis (Dominick Stephens and Craig Purcell). The local Greek contingent, given the Athens club had only been running for about 18 months, was especially impressive (3 mins 30 secs) Tournament format: three regular rounds followed by a fourth round of tiered top boards. Rather than a single top board, the format featured seven simultaneous top boards – the top 7 players went to the premier board, players 8–14 played the second tier, 15–21 the third, and so on down through the field. Crucially, players who volunteered to sit out for round four to help with numbers kept their ranking position (7 mins) Ken and Gavin discuss how the tiered format means the fourth round is never a dead rubber – every board is still competing for something meaningful (8 mins 15 secs) Discussion of the central clock arrangement: effectively federation-based rather than a literal single clock, with the two main venues coordinating their start times by communication (9 mins 30 secs) The venues The main venue was the upstairs function space of a beachside restaurant operation – excellent location right on the waterfront, but somewhat cramped for negotiations once all the boards were in (9 mins 45 secs) As a result, boards were redistributed to the secondary venue: the Anchor bar, about 150–200 metres down the road. Gavin played two games in each location and considered the Anchor the better play space – more open, well ventilated, and with a large covered outdoor area next to a (drained) pool (11 mins) The colour-coded sash system made it easy to identify players by country but created the amusing challenge of locating your specific Italy in a room full of Italys from different boards (13 mins) The third venue – an outdoor shaded area – was reserved for the premier top board. Unlike Milan's car park, this one had good shade and plenty of room for spectators around the giant shadow board (13 mins 30 secs) Pre-tournament social activities Gavin outlines the structure: you could do as much or as little as you liked. He landed well due to a useful 5.5-hour Singapore layover that helped reset his body clock, and flew over on the same flight as tournament director Jamal Blakkarly (16 mins) They were met at Athens airport by Spyros, his wife, and daughter, who drove them to breakfast at a beautiful harbour-side restaurant in one of the small inlet bays east of Piraeus (18 mins 15 secs) Pre-tournament island stay: Gavin spent two days on Serifos, the island Spyros recommended and which has personal significance to his family (his grandfather was christened there). Spyros provided a detailed Google Map of the best spots. With the tourist season barely starting, Gavin got excellent last-minute accommodation at a family-run hotel and had the beaches almost entirely to himself (18 mins 45 secs) The island was so off-season that locals were literally still painting their furniture and kerbs in preparation. Gavin did the recommended hikes and swims, and the hotel gifted him a dry-bag left behind by a previous guest (20 mins 30 secs) Back in Athens overnight, Gavin caught up with a multinational squad of players including Shane, Brandon, Max, Zoe, Justin Law, Bradley Grace, and Karthik. They had dinner at an Italian restaurant with the Acropolis lit up above them (22 mins 30 secs) Hydra day trip (Wednesday): players caught the fast ferry from Piraeus out to Hydra (about 1.5 hrs). The island has a refined Venetian-Greek port feel, with rustic paths and rock beaches beyond. The group visited the Museum of the 1821 Greek Revolution, full of local history and artefacts. Gavin wore one of his Diplomacy shirts and ended up being an ambassador for the hobby to an American grandmother and her debate-champion granddaughter from North Carolina – and pointed them towards David Hood and the local hobby there (24 mins 15 secs) The water temperature at the beach was about 4–5 degrees colder than Australia, which meant the Europeans loved it and Gavin did not go in (26 mins 30 secs) Acropolis and Athens tour (Thursday): guided tour of the Acropolis by what Spyros described as the best guides operating there, followed by a walk through the Plaka and past the Panathenaic Stadium (venue of the first modern Olympics in 1896), then a seafood lunch at a beautiful harbourside restaurant (30 mins) Temple of Poseidon (Thursday evening): the most popular activity – the bus was packed. About halfway there, Spyros took everyone on an unannounced detour to a beach bar where they had the place to themselves, a wonderful surprise. The Temple itself sits on a peninsula with 270-degree sea views. Spyros told the story of how the Aegean got its name from that location, and a huge group photo was taken (31 mins 15 secs) Tournament production values Gavin describes the production as setting new high-water marks for tournament organisation – high enough that the Chicago 2027 organising team would be wondering how to match it. Every player had a colour-coded sash matching their country, a branded WDC Athens notepad in their country colour, and a matching pen for every round (33 mins) The awards were 3D-printed Greek god statues for the podium finishers, complemented by a full suite of themed awards for the top players in each country and for notable gameplay (34 min) Special awards included: the Ajax Award for 8th place overall (the brilliant fighter who just missed out); the Archimedes Award for the most innovative play; the Leonidas Award for the player who fought on against insurmountable odds; and professionally screen-printed awards for best performance as each of the seven Great Powers (35 mins 45 secs) Gavin's games Round 1 – France – Board: Agkystri (View game) Gavin introduces his first game and the board composition: he played France, with Danae Stamataki (Austria-Hungary, local Greek player who topped the board on 10 supply centres and won best Austria), Sabrina Ahuja "Sabi" as England, Brian Ecton as Germany, Jean-Louis Delattre as Italy, Teo Ananiadis as Russia, and Frank Oosterom from the Netherlands as Turkey (37 mins 15 secs) The plan was a Western Triple working with England and Germany, with the goal of neutralising a strong-looking Italy early. It didn't come together as intended (37 mins 45 secs) The infamous mis-order: Gavin had two builds and intended fleet Brest plus a second build. Instead he built fleet Brest and placed the build directly in MAO, effectively waiving his second build. The DBN commentators interpreted this as a genius strategic waive; Ken's interpretation was somewhat more grounded. Gavin confirms Ken was correct (39 mins) The other players on the board didn't share DBN's generous reading of the situation. Germany immediately moved into Burgundy and kept flipping between fronts as his position allowed. Italy kept pressing France throughout. Gavin found himself squeezed down to a single unit in the English Channel (40 mins 30 secs) Final turn plan: England agreed to convoy an army across to Picardy to support Gavin back into Brest. Instead, Sabi walked into an open Paris. Gavin ended the game with zero supply centres and was eliminated (42 mins 15 secs) Gavin notes he made his disappointment known professionally, and that he subsequently had a drink with Sabi – but not that night (44 mins 15 secs) Round 2 – England – Board: Lemnos Not covered by DBN. Gavin played England; the board included Dominick Stephens (New Zealand) as Germany, Chris Brand (Canada) as Russia, Ruben Sanchez as Italy, Roberto Perego (Italy) as France, Robert Schuppe as Turkey, and Anastasia "Nastja" Styles as Austria-Hungary (46 mins) The plan was a Northern Alliance of England, Germany, and Russia. It unravelled immediately when Chris opened Moscow to Livonia and Dominick interpreted it as aggressive – resulting in a Germany-Russia war from the outset (46 mins 15 secs) Gavin adapted: knowing Germany was occupied in the east, he gave Russia some space and opened into Belgium, with Dominick and Chris both honouring his request to take Norway unopposed via fleet (46 mins 45 secs) Dominick and Gavin worked to grind down Roberto Perego's France, who ground out a hard-fought game staying alive on 2 centres. Ruben Sanchez's Italy played a deft game, flipping between alliances with Turkey and Austria (49 mins 15 secs) Dominick topped the board on 10; Ruben came in at 9; Gavin finished at 7. The game was meant to run to 1909 but drew earlier when the position stabilised. Gavin reflects he may have drawn too early, with both Dominick and Ruben suggesting he had room to push for another two centres (50 mins) Round 3 – Germany – Board: Symi (View game) Gavin played Germany. The board included Shane Armstrong (Australia) as France, Mikalis Kamaritis as Italy, Alex Maslow (USA) as Russia, Steven Hogue (USA) as Austria, Alex Lebedev (Russia) as England, and Jack Johns as Turkey (51 mins 15 secs) The strategic context: only Mikalis Kamaritis and Alex Lebedev were realistically in contention for the top board from this game. Shane and Gavin identified this early and committed to supporting the player they believed deserved to be there (52 mins 45 secs) Shane and Gavin opened with a Sealion against England, while Gavin also walked a careful line with Alex Lebedev, who initially felt more threatened by France than Germany. Austria was eliminated in 1903, and England in 1904 (53 mins 45 secs) A notable moment: Gavin slipped an army from the North Sea into an unoccupied London – a move he acknowledged was unnecessary, created friction with Alex Lebedev, and which he would not make again. He apologised on the day (56 mins 15 secs) Mikalis told Gavin and Shane to wait until 1905 – and delivered. He launched from his eastern position, took two dots off Russia and one off Turkey in a single year, then steamrolled from there. Alex Maslow was a strong and enjoyable player who nearly flipped the alliance but ultimately couldn't (56 mins 15 secs) The game agreed to a draw of 10-10-14 (Shane-Gavin-Mikalis), which the three felt would get Mikalis comfortably onto the top board. In the final adjudication Mikalis took one extra dot away from Shane, making the final scores 15-10-9 (58 mins 15 secs) Round 4 – Austria – Board: Myconos (View game) Gavin made it onto the fourth round, placed into the 6th top board. The board featured Shane Armstrong again as Turkey, Emmett Wainwright as England, Patrick Jacobson as France, Nathan Lester as Germany, Cameron Taylor as Italy, and Richard Bolton as Russia (59 mins 30 secs) The standout introduction: Nathan Lester, son of Dan Lester (who Gavin played against at Bangkok WDC). Same voice, same playing style, same persuasive meta-game arguments – but with a mullet and dressed like he's in an 80s rock video, and without the beard-stroking (1 hr 0 mins 45 secs) Gavin and Shane, having just played together in Round 3, ended up as Austria and Turkey respectively – not a natural alliance. Gavin didn't trust it but it held. Italy and France both kept fighting hard throughout (59 mins 45 secs) The game drew in 1906, with Shane and Emmett both finishing on 8, Gavin on 6 as Austria. Everyone then rushed across the road to watch the top board (1 hr 3 mins 45 secs) The top board Ken asks about Mikalis's diplomatic style. Gavin: exceptional situational awareness, communicates clearly and directly, asked and answered the "what do you want from this game?" question in a way that built immediate trust, and was good to his word on timing (1 hr 4 mins) Gavin arrived at the top board mid-1906 (his own game had just drawn). The top board was played outdoors under a well-shaded tree with plenty of room for negotiations, guarded by two or three people ensuring other players and passing members of the public couldn't crowd the board (1 hr 5 mins) The giant shadow board: a massive life-size replica board was set up nearby so all spectators could follow the game without approaching the real board. Andrew Goff read out the orders and the shadow board was updated after each adjudication – the same setup used at Milan WDC (1 hr 7 mins 45 secs) When Gavin arrived, he felt Bradley Grace had the game. The shift came late – Mikalis made a decisive move in the endgame that separated him from a closely matched France/Germany contest (1 hr 9 mins) Congratulations to Mikalis Kamaritis – well deserved, Gavin says. And to Bradley Grace: so close, but it will happen (1 hr 9 mins) The awards ceremony included Mikalis receiving both the championship belt and a traditional olive laurel wreath – a detail that was not captured in the DBN stream. Ken flags this as something future broadcasts should consider covering (1 hr 11 mins 15 secs) A Best Shane Cubis Award was also created – won by a Greek player who loudly lobbied Spyros for an award on the basis of how much he'd helped out. An AI-generated image of Shane Cubis in 1901 attire featured on the award, to the complete bafflement of the European and American contingents (1 hr 12 mins 50 secs) Game hobby and future WDCs The Chicago Windy City Weasels delivered a presentation promoting WDC 2027, enthusiastically received by the assembled players (1 hr 13 mins 15 secs) The 2028 bid: Melbourne was the only bid, and it was unanimously approved. Andrew Goff (Goffy) presented it. WDC 2028 Melbourne will be held at the MCG – the Melbourne Cricket Ground – with the conference rooms used for regular play, and the premier top board played on the MCG wicket itself. The countdown timer will run on the MCG scoreboard. Notionally scheduled for the last weekend of February 2028 – the weekend after the Formula One Grand Prix and the weekend before the first AFL round (1 hr 14 mins 30 secs) For international context: roughly equivalent to playing at Yankee Stadium, Madison Square Garden, the Camp Nou, or Bayern Munich's Allianz Arena. English players will recognise the MCG as where English cricket hopes traditionally come to die (1 hr 15 mins 15 secs) Also at the game hobby: a unanimous vote to amend and modernise the WDC charter, which dates from around 2000–2001 and doesn't reflect current online play, email communication, or the organisational structures of the Asia-Pacific and European hobbies. Four representatives (from NADF, the Asia-Pacific Diplomacy Association, and the European and UK hobbies) will draft amendments to be presented at WDC 2027 Chicago, with ratification at WDC 2028 Melbourne (1 hr 18 mins) Wrap up Gavin acknowledges the full organising effort: approximately 10 people working behind the scenes alongside Spyros and Jamal to make everything run. The Greek hobby and Athens Diplomacy Club can be enormously proud (1 hr 20 mins 30 secs) The Armistice Party: held between rounds three and four in the venue near the pool area. A DJ with a custom app allowed all attending players to nominate up to 10 songs each, with the crowd then voting in real time from four options for what came next. Gavin describes it as stunningly well thought through (1 hr 22 mins) Ken summarises: meticulously planned, wonderful venue, brilliant location, great games, fantastic people. Gavin: you got it in one. Thank you to Spyros, Jamal, and everyone they played with (1 hr 23 mins) Addendum – recorded one week later Ken and Gavin explain the addendum: a few things were either forgotten or lost in the original recording, so they've caught up a week later to cover them (1 hr 25 mins 45 secs) The Cane Toad The Cane Toad tournament will not run in 2026 – Gavin has made the decision to rest it for the year and bring it back bigger and better in 2027 (1 hr 26 mins 30 secs) Reasons: Gavin no longer lives in Brisbane where the tournament has historically been based, and several attempts to get a local game going have been completely unsuccessful. He feels it would be unfair to interstate players to travel to Queensland only to play mostly other interstate players rather than a meaningful proportion of locals (1 hr 27 mins 30 secs) He also flags cost-of-living pressures and fuel costs as factors, noting that the fuel excise which had been removed is about to be reinstated (1 hr 28 mins 45 secs) Ken and Gavin have a brief riff on whether cane toads actually hibernate, and whether the tournament might one day move to a different Queensland location (1 hr 28 mins 45 secs) Gavin shares a long-held dream of running the Cane Toad on the beach under a sun-safe setup. Council regulations require public liability insurance – but the Asia Pacific Diplomacy Association is in the process of organising exactly that for tournament directors, which may open the door in future (1 hr 29 mins 15 secs) Tournament news The Sydney Cup is on the weekend of 4–5 July. Gavin would love to go but has used up his diplomacy credits between Greece and starting a new job – it'll have to stay in the bank for now (1 hr 30 mins 45 secs) A New Zealand tournament is being discussed for the week before WDC 2028 Melbourne (late February 2028). Three New Zealand players who attended WDC 2026 in Athens have flagged interest in hosting something, on the logic that if you're travelling all the way from Europe or the US, a short hop across the Tasman to New Zealand is well worth building into the itinerary (1 hr 32 mins) Ken enthusiastically endorses the idea and encourages anyone planning for WDC 2028 Melbourne to factor in a week in New Zealand beforehand (1 hr 33 mins 30 secs) Challenge for next episode Over his birthday lunch, Gavin's son surprised him with an accurate recall of his WDC result. This leads Gavin to issue a challenge for the next episode: both Ken and Gavin will do some homework and come back with three or four online diplomacy resources that people may not know about, to raise awareness of what the community has put together over the years (1 hr 34 mins 45 secs) Around the grounds VDiplomacy gets an introduction for any listeners who aren't familiar: a sibling platform to WebDiplomacy, it hosts classic games but is particularly known for its range of variants (1 hr 36 mins 30 secs) The Dionysus Reimagined game recap – the ancient Greece variant Ken and Gavin set up in the lead-up to WDC Athens. Ken soloed, eliminating Gavin in the final year. Gavin notes that technically his last dot was taken so late that his result registers as a survive rather than an elimination (1 hr 38 mins 45 secs) Gavin played Athens and found himself defending on all fronts from early on: Sparta (who built only armies and had nowhere to go but north), the Macedonians pressing from the north, Byzantium late in the game, and Rhodes. Ken played Byzantium and credits his early token luck as a key advantage, picking up all his bid supply centres including one he expected to bounce – giving him fleet dominance in the Aegean from the start (1 hr 40 mins) The bid mechanics are recapped for any listeners unfamiliar with the variant: each player has 4 tokens to bid on non-core supply centres; outbid or bounce and you don't get the build. Ken's fortunate opening bids gave him a decisive early position (1 hr 40 mins 30 secs) A practical tip for vDiplomacy players: always open the large map after adjudication. The small map can omit orders that didn't go through, making moves look different from what was actually played. Ken noted several instances in the Dionysus game where support orders that failed simply weren't visible on the small map (1 hr 45 mins 45 secs) Ken congratulates himself on the win and notes the ratings gap between the two has now closed to around 100 points (1 hr 47 mins 30 secs) New game announced: Gavin has set up a Pirates game titled Ahoy Mateys on vDiplomacy. Gunboat, 2-day 2-hour phase length. Ken explains the extra 2 hours: it gradually shifts the adjudication time back toward Australian time zones in games where everyone readies up early (1 hr 48 mins) Pirates variant overview: a 13-player variant set in the golden age of piracy in the Caribbean, created by Gavin in collaboration with Ollie (the vDiplomacy site administrator). The 13 players are broken into three factions (1 hr 51 mins 45 secs): Europeans – Spain, England, France, and Holland, who nominally control supply centres across the map but must capture them to make them count Pirates – five pirates, four historical (Montbas, Brasiliano, de la Cueva, and Johnson) and one fictitious: El Guapo, borrowed from the movie The Three Amigos Privateers – one per European power, operating as private navies with letters patent. They can attack anyone except their sponsoring power (and vice versa). The Dunkirkers serve Spain, Henry Morgan serves England, François Le Jones serves France, and the Rocherson serves Holland Unit rules: all units are fleets, but there are two types – Clippers (move up to two spaces, standard attack strength) and Frigates (move one space, attack at 1.5x strength). A single clipper cannot defend against an attacking frigate, but a clipper supported by another clipper can. Five marked spots on the board allow transformation between unit types (1 hr 57 mins 45 secs) Special rules: a voodoo witch's hut in Cuba allows a fleet on the north coast to teleport to the south coast and vice versa. And a 14th non-playing character – a Hurricane – spins up each storm season in a random sea territory, moves randomly in the fall turn, and destroys anything in its path with an effectively unstoppable attack strength, also resetting any supply centre it passes through to neutral (1 hr 59 mins) Ken commits to reading the full rules before play begins, notes Pirates has a genuine following on vDiplomacy with games regularly in progress, and suspects he may get slaughtered (2 hr 1 min 15 secs) Gavin and Ken wrap up the show (2 hr 2 mins 15 secs) Venue: At home Drinks for the interview: Ken: One of his home brews – a lager with a bit of a kick Gavin: A Baliamo Nero d'Avola from Sicily – opened two weeks prior, which he noted had become a little sour and bitter compared to its fresh opening, much like his first round at the tournament Just a reminder you can support the show by giving it 5 stars on iTunes or Stitcher. And don't forget if you want to help pay off the audio equipment… or get the guys more drunk, you can also donate at Patreon, plus you get extra podcast episodes! Lastly, don't forget to subscribe so you get the latest Diplomacy Games episodes straight to your phone. Thanks as always to Dr Dan aka "The General" for his rockin' intro tune.

What a profound honor to have Paul Kennedy on the ChinaTalk podcast. Kennedy is my favorite living historian and the writer who's most shaped my intellectual development. His analysis underpins what you hear on this show every week. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers is an epochal work that traces global power transitions from 1500 to the present. It's gripping, forest-and-trees scholarship at its finest. Equally impressive in different ways is his book, The Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860 to 1914. Not only is it god-tier diplomatic history, it also gives you a feel for the era through its explorations of social, economic, domestic, political, and cultural dimensions of Anglo-German relations. There are fascinating US/China analogies that we'll get into at some point in this podcast. His two most recent works directly inform the military coverage on China Talk. Engineers of Victory looks at how people and the systems they worked within solved engineering challenges that turned the tide for entire theaters in World War II. His latest, Victory at Sea: Naval Power and the Transformation of Global Order in World War II, is a sweeping history of a radical transformation in the balance of military power, from the mid-1930s when America was just gaining prominence, to after World War II, when it had no other significant naval competitor. The Parliament of Man: A History of the United Nations first got me interested in international organizations and gave me my senior thesis topic about the creation of the UN. What Kennedy taught me more than anything is this: sweat the details, look at the individual players, and zoom out often enough to understand what truly shapes the long-term fate of nations. Over the course of this episode, we pick up themes from all across his work: Great Power rivalries of the late 19th-early 20th centuries and their echoes today, Why potential antagonisms turn nice and why others turn belligerent, The persistent struggles of liberal internationalists and why they rarely get the outcomes they want, How China today is not Germany of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, The surprising ways geography shapes global power dynamics, How fear spreads among nations and why mutual suspicion is so hard to escape, Why top powers blow it and lose their dominant place in the world, How systems and innovation win wars. And much more, including salutary lessons from the Dutch and Swedes on boring yet prosperous futures, how Churchill's interest in gadgets influenced the course of the Second World War, and why transformative action from the UN remains unlikely in the near future. Note: we recorded this in 2024. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What a profound honor to have Paul Kennedy on the ChinaTalk podcast. Kennedy is my favorite living historian and the writer who's most shaped my intellectual development. His analysis underpins what you hear on this show every week. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers is an epochal work that traces global power transitions from 1500 to the present. It's gripping, forest-and-trees scholarship at its finest. Equally impressive in different ways is his book, The Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860 to 1914. Not only is it god-tier diplomatic history, it also gives you a feel for the era through its explorations of social, economic, domestic, political, and cultural dimensions of Anglo-German relations. There are fascinating US/China analogies that we'll get into at some point in this podcast. His two most recent works directly inform the military coverage on China Talk. Engineers of Victory looks at how people and the systems they worked within solved engineering challenges that turned the tide for entire theaters in World War II. His latest, Victory at Sea: Naval Power and the Transformation of Global Order in World War II, is a sweeping history of a radical transformation in the balance of military power, from the mid-1930s when America was just gaining prominence, to after World War II, when it had no other significant naval competitor. The Parliament of Man: A History of the United Nations first got me interested in international organizations and gave me my senior thesis topic about the creation of the UN. What Kennedy taught me more than anything is this: sweat the details, look at the individual players, and zoom out often enough to understand what truly shapes the long-term fate of nations. Over the course of this episode, we pick up themes from all across his work: Great Power rivalries of the late 19th-early 20th centuries and their echoes today, Why potential antagonisms turn nice and why others turn belligerent, The persistent struggles of liberal internationalists and why they rarely get the outcomes they want, How China today is not Germany of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, The surprising ways geography shapes global power dynamics, How fear spreads among nations and why mutual suspicion is so hard to escape, Why top powers blow it and lose their dominant place in the world, How systems and innovation win wars. And much more, including salutary lessons from the Dutch and Swedes on boring yet prosperous futures, how Churchill's interest in gadgets influenced the course of the Second World War, and why transformative action from the UN remains unlikely in the near future. Note: we recorded this in 2024. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“The United States has conducted an unusually ideological foreign policy, an unusually economic foreign policy, and an unusually democratic foreign policy. These three features have been present from the eighteenth century to the present.” — Michael Mandelbaum Is there an “American way” of foreign policy? Does that make the now almost 250 year-old republic unique? Michael Mandelbaum, author of The American Way of Foreign Policy: Ideology, Economics, Democracy, says yes and no. America is exceptional. But that exceptionalism is unexceptional. Mandelbaum says that American foreign policy over the last 250 years has been unusually ideological, economic, and democratic. Foreign policy realists say great powers all behave the same way. Mandelbaum, as an idealist, says: not America. Uniquely in world history, he says, America has pursued its principles overseas without prioritising its political, economic, or military self-interest. And yet The American Way of Foreign Policy isn't triumphalist. Mandelbaum opposed NATO expansion in the 1990s. He was in the anti-Vietnam marches as a Harvard student in the Sixties. Nor is he partial to demonstrations of overt nationalism. His July 4 plans, for example, are to watch baseball. As a lucky man in a fortunate Republic, what better way to celebrate 250 years of independence than to enjoy its national pastime? Five Takeaways •       Three Distinctive Features: Ideological, Economic, Democratic: Mandelbaum's thesis: American foreign policy has differed from the foreign policies of other countries in three enduring ways. First, ideological: political ideas and the effort to spread them have been more important to America than to other powers. Second, economic: America has used economic instruments to achieve political goals — trade, aid, sanctions — rather than the imperial model of using political power for economic gain. Third, democratic: American public opinion has always had greater influence over foreign policy than in other countries. For almost all other countries, for most of their histories, foreign policy was the preserve of a small elite. That was never true of the United States. •       Idealist and Realist: Both Apply: Andrew invokes Kenneth Waltz and the realist tradition, which argues that great powers always behave the same way regardless of their self-image. Mandelbaum's response: realism fits American foreign policy up to a point. America has fought twelve significant wars and has not been oblivious to military power. But it has also conducted idealist foreign policies that cannot be explained by realism — policies driven by its liberal political ideas rather than its material interests. The distinctive feature of American foreign policy is not that it ignores realism, but that it goes beyond realism in ways that other great powers have not. •       NATO Expansion: Mandelbaum's One Big Regret: In the 1990s, Mandelbaum was opposed to the expansion of NATO, alongside George Kennan — one of the architects of Cold War containment. His fear: it would do a lot to alienate Russia. He acknowledges that he cannot blame NATO expansion explicitly for the Russian attack on Ukraine. But he notes that the fear was reasonable and that, as he puts it, alas, it has come to pass. He does not think that the Russian attack was inevitable or that NATO caused it. But he does think the warning was worth issuing and that it deserved more serious consideration than it received. •       Vietnam and the Antiwar Movement: Was It Counterproductive? As a graduate student at Harvard under Stanley Hoffmann, Mandelbaum was opposed to Vietnam and took part in marches. He has since revised his views — not on whether Vietnam was a mistake (it was) but on whether the antiwar movement had any positive effect on the course of policy. His conclusion: it probably didn't, and may have been perverse. Nixon used the antiwar movement as a foil. The war ended because most Americans decided it was costing too much in American lives — not because the goals were wrong. That was the democratic aspect of American foreign policy in action. •       Israel, Gaza, and the American Way: Andrew suggests that Israel has been able to push America around, and that this is “un-American.” Mandelbaum pushes back firmly. America supports Israel for two reasons: strategic advantage (Israel as a bulwark against threats to American interests in the Middle East) and shared values (Israel is the only country in the region that shares American political values). When interests diverged — the 1980s anti-aircraft arms sale, Obama's Iran deal — America went its own way. The reverse is also true: America doesn't have the capacity to push Israel around in Gaza, because for Israel these are matters of national survival. About the Guest Michael Mandelbaum is the Christian A. Herter Professor Emeritus of American Foreign Policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He previously taught at Harvard, Columbia, and the US Naval Academy, and was a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He holds a BA from Yale, an MA from King's College Cambridge, and a PhD from Harvard. He is the author or co-author of thirteen books, including The American Way of Foreign Policy: Ideology, Economics, Democracy (Oxford University Press, April 2026) and The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy: Weak Power, Great Power, Superpower, Hyperpower. He lives in the Washington DC suburbs. References: •       The American Way of Foreign Policy: Ideology, Economics, Democracy by Michael Mandelbaum (Oxford University Press, April 2026). •       The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy: Weak Power, Great Power, Superpower, Hyperpower by Michael Mandelbaum — referenced in the conversation. •       Kenneth Waltz and the realist school of international relations — referenced at the opening. •       Ernst Haas and the idealist school — referenced at the opening; Andrew's teachers at Berkeley. •       George Kennan — referenced as Mandelbaum's fellow opponent of NATO expansion in the 1990s. •       Stanley Hoffmann — Mandelbaum's Harvard PhD supervisor, referenced at the close. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly ...

Subscribe now for the full episode. Danny speaks with Anusar Farooqui about the finer points of the emerging multipolar world. They discuss the idea of Iran as a great power, spheres of influence, China and the future of East Asia, the role of India and the European Union in global politics, and more. Follow Anusar's work at ⁠Policy Tensor⁠. Read Danny's piece that they debated, ⁠“Power Without Ideology.”⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Summits between US and Chinese leaders are important events. They provide opportunities to discuss sensitive issues, manage friction, and to identify ways to solve problems and promote cooperation where possible. A great deal of preparation usually goes into a US-China summit, involving hundreds of phone calls, virtual, and in-person meetings between US and Chinese officials.   The May 14-15 summit in Beijing was atypical, perhaps not surprisingly since Donald Trump is a very atypical president. Today we are going to talk about the summit – the process and well as the outcomes and the implications for the US-China relationship and American interests.  Joining us today to talk about these issues is Sarah Beran. Sarah Beran was senior director for China and Taiwan affairs in the National Security Council during the Biden administration from 2022 to 2024. She was subsequently deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Beijing. At the NSC, she led strategic preparations for multiple summits between President Joe Biden and Xi Jinping. After her 23 years in government service, Sarah joined Macro Advisory Partners.   Timestamps:   [00:00] Introduction   [01:45] Differences in Preparing for the Summit   [03:33] What Was Missing from Trump's Itinerary   [08:18] US and Chinese Objectives for the Summit   [12:30] Constructive Strategic Stability as a Framework   [18:09] Iran, North Korea, and Denuclearization in Chinese Policy [23:55] Tension over Taiwan Language   [29:15] Potential Reactions to Trump Calling President Lai   [30:12] Future of US-China Relations and Ally Reactions 

One of the most common talking points among policymakers and analysts in Washington is the belief that China aims to replace the United States as the world's dominant power. Variations of that narrative are also widely shared in many European capitals. There is little doubt that China is asserting itself more forcefully in global affairs, especially amid a new era of Great Power competition. But senior officials in Beijing have also made clear that they have little interest in taking on the full responsibilities and obligations that come with traditional global leadership. In a recent Foreign Policy article, Jeremy Friedman, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, explored the limits and ambitions of China's expanding international power. He joins Eric to discuss what China wants… and what it does not want from a changing global order.

• It's Podmasters' 10th birthday! Get an extra 10% off  a year's Patreon backing.Wars around the globe are drawing eerie comparisons with the late 19th and early 20th Century, when Great Powers clashed in an atmosphere of nationalist populism. Are we – like then – on an inevitable march toward world war, or already deep in a second Cold War? Yale historian and Cold War expert Professor Odd Arne Westad joins Seth Thévoz and suggests we may be looking at the wrong era entirely – and why it may “not be possible to turn back” from the next chapter of history.   • Buy Arne's book The Coming Storm from our affiliate bookshop and you'll help fund the podcast by earning us a small commission for every sale. Bookshop.org's fees help support independent bookshops too.• Back us on Patreon – www.patreon.com/bunkercast    Written and presented by Seth Thévoz. Producer: James Liddell. Audio production: Tom Taylor. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Music by Kenny Dickinson. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production.www.podmasters.co.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

• It's Podmasters' 10th birthday! Get an extra 10% off  a year's Patreon backing. Wars around the globe are drawing eerie comparisons with the late 19th and early 20th Century, when Great Powers clashed in an atmosphere of nationalist populism. Are we – like then – on an inevitable march toward world war, or already deep in a second Cold War?  Yale historian and Cold War expert Professor Odd Arne Westad joins Seth Thévoz and suggests we may be looking at the wrong era entirely – and why it may “not be possible to turn back” from the next chapter of history.    • Buy Arne's book The Coming Storm from our affiliate bookshop and you'll help fund the podcast by earning us a small commission for every sale. Bookshop.org's fees help support independent bookshops too. • Back us on Patreon – www.patreon.com/bunkercast     Written and presented by Seth Thévoz. Producer: James Liddell. Audio production: Tom Taylor. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Music by Kenny Dickinson. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production. www.podmasters.co.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Prof. John Mearsheimer : The Future of Great Power PoliticsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

People who end up with far more power than they bargained for, and everything that comes with it. Visit thisamericanlife.org/lifepartners to sign up for our premium subscription.Prologue: Ira tells the story of two friends who had this incredible power to save someone. And with that great power came great responsibility. (4 minutes)Act One: Alex Kotlowitz reports on a woman with the power to change two people's lives — and at the height of her power, she doesn't even know she has it. (25 minutes)Act Two: Ira Glass talks with a mother and daughter who spent years watching their neighbor do things they found shocking and felt powerless to stop. Then, suddenly, they get the power to decisively change things permanently. And they have to decide if they will. (14 minutes)Act Three: When you're powerless, you spend a lot of time thinking about the people above you — what they want, why they do what they do, whether they'll ever come through. Shalom Auslander has a story about that relationship. (11 minutes)Transcripts are available at thisamericanlife.orgThis American Life privacy policy.Learn more about sponsor message choices.

A battlefield setback in Mali sparks a much bigger question: what kind of power is Russia now, and what kind of power can it afford to be? Is it a superpower? No. Is it a great power? It depends what you mean. It certainly is not just the "gas station with nukes" of the cliche. Putin's language of “sovereign civilisation” recasts greatness as resistance rather than dominance, especially as Victory Day messaging leans on endurance. I argue Russia is a middle power that can pivot, triangulate and sometimes punch above its weight without shaping the world order. That's no bad thing. Russia (and Putin) are not "failures" as some would suggest, even if they have by no means hit their grand, aspirational goals. Russia would be a lot happier if it accepted this status but for Putin and his Homo Sovieticus peers, alas, this is not enough - and that is what has lead us all to the present unhappy place.The article I mentioned from The i Paper is here, and the Deutsche Welle video is here.The podcast's corporate partner and sponsor is Conducttr, which provides software for innovative and immersive crisis exercises in hybrid warfare, counter-terrorism, civil affairs and similar situations.You can also follow my blog, In Moscow's Shadows, and become one of the podcast's supporting Patrons and gain question-asking rights and access to exclusive extra materials including the (almost-) weekly Govorit Moskva news briefing right here. Support the show

Paramount-Warner Brother merger, IMF-World Bank spring meetings in DC, Skydance, Big Tech, David Ellison, Larry Ellison, the current state of the merger, Corey Booker's Congressional hearing on the merger, Saudi-UAE support behind Paramount's bid, Block the Merger Campaign, Committee for the First Amendment, Jane Fonda, Netflix, is Netflix sponsoring Block the Merger?, Button/Pingate, the state of the documentary industry, the Ticketmaster lawsuit as a model for stopping the merger, is there a deliberate effort to consolidate the entertainment industry?, AI, how AI is upending the entertainment industry, the long term consequences of AI on the film/TV industry, China's film industry, is the US trying to reconfigure it's film industry in line with China's?, US soft power, foreign aid, Belt and Road Initiative, the US remodeling its foreign aid after China's Belt and Road Initiate, Hollywood as a form of US soft power, is the US reconfiguring Hollywood like it is foreign aid for the Great Power struggle?, free speech, propagandaMusic by: Keith Allen Dennishttps://keithallendennis.bandcamp.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Acts 8:18–23 gives a sobering look at Simon the Sorcerer—a man drawn to spiritual power but not transformed in heart. His story is a reminder that not everything that looks spiritual is rooted in God. Even today, appearances, influence, and charisma can sometimes mask motives that aren’t aligned with truth. Discernment is essential in a world full of voices claiming authority. Scripture calls believers to test what they hear against God’s Word and to pay attention to fruit, not just presentation. True spiritual leadership reflects humility, repentance, and alignment with Christ—not control, profit, or self-exaltation. Highlights Not everything that appears spiritual is genuinely from God Simon’s story reveals the danger of pursuing power over transformation Discernment requires evaluating teaching against Scripture Jesus teaches that spiritual truth is revealed through “fruit,” not appearance False teaching can be persuasive, charismatic, and still misleading God calls believers to wisdom, testing, and spiritual awareness True faith is marked by humility, repentance, and Christlike character Links & Resources: Have an idea for our newsletter? We want to hear from you! Take our survey below: Take Our Survey! Do you want to listen ad-free? When you join Crosswalk Plus, you gain access to exclusive, in-depth Bible study guides, devotionals, sound biblical advice, and daily encouragement from trusted pastors and authors—resources designed to strengthen your faith and equip you to live it out boldly. PLUS ad free podcasts! Sign Up Today! Full Transcript Below: Encountering Modern Day Simon the SorcerersBy Vivian Bricker Bible Reading:“When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, ‘Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ Peter answered: ‘May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.’” - Acts 8:18-23 There are many false teachers who distract us from the true Gospel. These individuals tend to be charismatic, confident, and deceptive in their dealings with others. How many megachurch pastors have we seen step down from positions of authority because of scandal? As followers of the Lord, we must be discerning. It takes time, focus, and a close walk with Jesus to recognize wolves dressed as sheep. God will help us discern true followers of the Lord from those who are not. Unfortunately, there are many people who claim to be Christians, only to disown Him through their actions. While we cannot judge someone’s salvation, we can weigh what they say and do against Scripture. Intersecting Faith & Life: Simon practiced sorcery (Acts 8:9). His acts amazed the people, and he often boasted of his greatness. The people of Samaria believed he was someone special, even calling him “the Great Power of God” (Acts 8:10). However, once Philip shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they rejected Simon the Sorcerer and followed Jesus instead (Acts 8:12-13). In Acts 8:18-23, we see the true condition of Simon’s heart. He wanted the same ability to give the Holy Spirit to anyone on whom he laid his hands. Peter was angered by Simon’s desire and rebuked him, urging him to repent and turn to the Lord. Simon’s actions revealed that he was “full of bitterness and captive to sin.” There are many leaders within cities, organizations, and companies who are similar to Simon the Sorcerer. Although we are told Simon believed Philip’s message of the Good News of Jesus Christ, he was still influenced by the sin within him (Acts 8:13). His main focus was power. Peter could see through Simon’s duplicity, and we need to ensure we are doing the same. As followers of Christ, we must be aware of those who claim to be believers but peddle the Word of God for profit. We must also be cautious of anyone who professes faith but denies Jesus through their actions. Jesus tells us, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matthew 7:15-17). Anyone who denies the Lord in their actions or tries to use the Gospel for monetary gain should be rebuked. If they are a true follower of the Lord, they will turn to the Lord in repentance and ask for forgiveness. However, if they continue in their wicked ways, it is right to assume they never knew the Lord. Have you come across anyone who is like Simon the Sorcerer? What are some ways you can become more discerning of leaders and individuals? How can you gauge their heart? Pray with me: Dear Jesus, please give me discernment to know who Your true followers are and who are not. Uncover the Simons in my life. Guide my heart away from false teachers and toward You. Bless me with the confidence to rebuke these individuals, as Peter did, and give me the boldness to stand up for You. In Your Name, I pray, Amen. Further Reading: 2 Peter 2:1-3 1 John 4:1 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

متن: بهجت بندری، علی بندریبا راهنمایی آرش رئیسی‌نژادویدیو: حمیدرضا فرخ‌سرشتسوریه همیشه وسط ماجرا بوده؛ میان امپراتوری‌ها، جنگ‌ها و راه‌های تجاری.اما یک سؤال قدیمی این وسط می‌مونه:چطور سرزمینی با این موقعیت، خودش هیچ‌وقت تبدیل به یک قدرت بزرگ نشد؟چه سوال‌های تاریخی داشتیم؟ نامی که از همسایه‌ها بهش رسیده، دوره‌های کوتاه قدرت‌گیری سلوکی‌ها و زنوبیا و نقش مهمی که جغرافیا در تقسیم و آسیب‌پذیری این سرزمین داشته.اگر شما هم کنجکاوید بفهمید چرا سوریه همیشه صحنه بازی بوده و نه بازیگر، این ویدیو برای همین ساخته شده.منابع و لینک‌هایی برای کنجکاوی بیشترشاه و شطرنج قدرت در خاورمیانه، آرش رئیسی نژادEmbattled Neighbors: Syria, Israel, Lebanon by Robert G. Rabil Syria: Revolution From Above by Raymond Hinnebusch Full article: Iran's Uncertain Standing in the Middle EastWater, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in SyriaAntioch's Last Heirs: The Hatay Greek Orthodox Community between Greece, Syria and Turkey(PDF) Iran's Syria Strategy: The Evolution of DeterrenceIran-Syria Relations Amid Regional Reset Dynamics - Middle East Council on Global AffairsThe fall of Assad has exposed the extent of the damage to Iran's axis of resistance | Chatham HousePower Points Defining the Syria-Hezbollah Relationship | Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceAnalysis: Collapse of Syria's Assad is a blow to Iran's 'Axis of Resistance'Gulf States Steer Syria's Turbulent Politics Post Assad • Stimson CenterSyria and the Great Powers (1946-1958): How Western Power Politics Pushed the Country Toward the Soviet UnionBACKGROUNDER RUSSIAN NAvAL BASe TARTUSFrom Cold War to Civil War: 75 Years of Russian-Syrian Relations —Russian-Syrian Relations: Past and PresentThe Ottoman City between East and Westhttps://brill.com/display/book/9789004315983/B9789004315983_005.xmlCaptagon and the Syrian War Economy: A Regional Security Concern - University of New York in Prague‘A dirty business': how one drug is turning Syria into a narco-state | Syria | The GuardianBonus Episode: Understanding the Violence in Southern SyriaWho was Syria's Adib al Shishakli? | Al Jazeera World DocumentarySyrian Civil War SUMMARIZED - Kings and Generals DOCUMENTARYAssyria – The First Empire of Evil'CIA operation Timber Sycamore created Syrian crisis': Jeffrey Sachs reveals US' real role in Syria✅ پشتیبانی از بی‌پلاس https://bpluspodcast.com/support☑️ وبسایت بی‌پلاس https://bpluspodcast.com/✅ پادکست بی‌پلاس https://bpluspodcast.com/how-to-listen☑️ کانال تلگرام بی‌پلاس https://t.me/podcastbplus Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.