Presented in Partnership with
ARGUING “RETURN TO NORMALCY”
Economist, Public Policy Analyst, and Professor at Columbia University
ARGUING “RETURN TO NORMALCY”
Distinguished Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; Co-founder of Yale University’s Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies Program
ARGUING “DEFEAT FOR AMERICA”
Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign; Founder and CEO of Hermitage Capital Management
ARGUING “DEFEAT FOR AMERICA”
President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)
MODERATOR
Host and Moderator-in-Chief
This week:
- New episode: Does a second Trump term mean a thaw in U.S.-Russia relations?
- A look into our award-winning season
- Your Sunday reading list
This week’s debate was recorded live in New York City in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s part of our three-part series, “The Trump Doctrine: A Global Reckoning?,” exploring the shifting landscape of U.S. foreign policy.
This debate zeroes in on Russia—a nuclear power and long-standing geopolitical rival. Over the years, Donald Trump has praised Vladimir Putin, calling him “a strong man” and a “genius.” That tone marks a clear departure from traditional U.S. policy and has sparked a deep divide over how America should engage with Moscow.
So, we’re asking: Are Trump’s Russia policies a return to normalcy—or a setback for America?
The debate was taped on May 6th, before Trump’s recent comments about Putin on Truth Social or any new developments in the Russia-Ukraine talks. Still, the conversation you’ll hear raises powerful questions about the wisdom—and the risks—of a more conciliatory approach to Russia.
Substantive arguments were made on both sides in the sometimes-heated discussion that examined the way forward with Russia and its implications for Ukraine and NATO and took place before a packed and engaged room. We were fortunate to be joined by some of the most influential thought leaders on this topic: Jeffrey Sachs, Bill Browder, Alina Polyakova and the Council on Foreign Relations’ own Thomas Graham.
Our moderator-in-chief John Donvan was also joined on stage by Open to Debate’s Chairman, Robert Rosenkranz, and Council on Foreign Relation’s president Michael Froman, where they discussed the importance of collaboration and openly sharing both viewpoints.
It’s a compelling discussion. Let’s dive in. As always, let us know what you think.
More soon,
Lia Matthow
Chief Content Officer
POINT/COUNTERPOINT
Trump’s Russia Policies: Return to Normalcy or Defeat for America?
RETURN TO NORMALCY: Jeffrey Sachs
“‘Normal’ under Biden was a U.S. targeting attack and missiles deep inside Russia actually firing missiles in Russia. That’s normal. No, that’s insane as far as I’m concerned. What are we doing? This war started because we cannot leave good enough alone. We had to be right on Russia’s borders. We had to have missile systems all over Russia’s neighborhood. Despite every objection for 30 years, none of this is told…This is nonsense. This trivialization that this is about one person that’s a game. That is a propaganda game. This is not about Putin, this is about us.”
DEFEAT FOR AMERICA: Bill Browder
“Let me just start out by saying why am I not physically there? Why am I not with [you] in this room? The reason is because it’s too dangerous for me to come into this room. Why is it too dangerous? Because I have a conflict with Vladimir Putin. [I’ve] been in a fight over corruption… and in recent times, the United States is no longer, my strongest ally. In fact, it looks at times, and as if, the United States is aligning itself with Russia. When I say that, we can look at the votes of the United Nations and various other policies.”
RETURN TO NORMALCY: Thomas Graham
“We have tried to isolate Russia diplomatically over the past three to four years. That has not worked because China, India, and others are not prepared to follow us. We need to understand that engagement is not a reward for good behavior; engagement, diplomatic contact, is the way that we establish our interest. We convey our red lines to the Russian side, and we understand where they’re coming from. All of this in the interest of avoiding an unnecessary conflict between our two sides.”
DEFEAT FOR AMERICA: Alina Polyakova
“Certainly Russia, not under Vladimir Putin, is not a trusted partner. So I think we have to look at Russia as it actually is today, not a mythical, romanticized version of Russia that we want it to be, which would be a trusted partner to the United States and our allies. Russia under Putin doesn’t want lasting peace. Russia is not interested in a ceasefire, and Russia is not interested in an open and sincere negotiation because they are not interested in making any compromises.”
Recognizing Our Impact
We are pleased to share that Open to Debate has been honored by multiple prestigious organizations in recent weeks, a testament to the relevance of our mission. We won our first-ever Gracie Award from the Alliance for Women in Media Foundation, an honor shared by our CEO Clea Conner and Chief Content Officer Lia Matthow with our guest moderator Nayeema Raza on the episode “Should We Address the Gender Wage Gap?” We also secured a six Telly Awards, a Bronze New York Radio Festival Award, and a Webby nomination.
Additionally, TIME Magazine recognized our Chairman and Founder, Robert Rosenkranz, in its TIME 100 Philanthropy 2025 list, citing the growing impact of our nonpartisan debates – including the impactful episode “Were Israel’s Actions in the Gaza War Justified?” and our influential report on improving U.S. presidential debates, “Discourse Correction.” For more information, visit our Awards page.
None of this would be possible without you, our listeners, and champions of open debate — thank you for your support.
WEEKLY POINTS OF VIEW
Why we don’t need to fear AI, and how to use it for your mental health
Deepak Chopra | May 30, 2025
The Times
Watch Deepak’s debate on whether the more we evolve, the less we need God
The death of the family home is killing the American middle class
Joel Kotkin | May 26, 2025
The Telegraph
Watch Joel’s debate on whether big cities are past their prime
Why Is This Supreme Court Handing Trump More and More Power?
Kate Shaw | May 26, 2025
The New York Times
Watch Kate’s debate on whether the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness
Did Elon Musk drain the swamp or drown in it?
Stephen Moore | May 29, 2025
Fox News
Watch Stephen’s debate on the economic agenda in Trump’s first 100 days
Hear Both Sides with One Donation
At Open to Debate, we believe that listening to both sides is essential for understanding, problem-solving, and building a healthier democracy. In a time of division and noise, we create that much-needed space for honest, civil discourse. Donate today to ensure every voice is heard — and every listener walks away with a new perspective on the other side.
