Show Notes
In this newest conversation on History Impossible, I was super-happy to be joined by fellow historical podcaster Zack Twamley, host of the excellent and long-running podcast, When Diplomacy Fails. Zack and I have mostly crossed paths via our mutual podcasting pal Kristaps Andrejsons of the Eastern Border podcast, on which we have both been guests. Most recently, as many will recall, Zack and I were part of a larger panel discussion (that also included other podcasting great Jack Johansson of the Secret Police podcast) that Kristaps hosted to discuss the state of the new Trump administration vis-à-vis the ongoing war in Ukraine and the apparent attempt by the U.S. government to disentangle itself from European affairs while also bringing the war to a speedy conclusion (which, as we all know, did not happen). After that conversation, Zack and I decided we should deepen the part of the conversation that stuck with us and dive deep into the geopolitical school of thought that is typical of Ukraine’s loudest critics: so-called Realism.
As it turns out, there was a lot to say and for me to learn, which did not surprise me seeing as Zack is the closest thing to an expert on the field of international relations that I know, thanks to the focus of When Diplomacy Fails. This episode got deep into the weeds of Realism, its drawbacks, its benefits, its variations over time, and even its dangers. There was a lot of contemporary politics interwoven into the historical discussion as well, so Ukraine is certainly covered, but so is the historical application of realpolitik, and, fitting in with History Impossible’s recent episodes, its relationship with imperialism of both the soft and hard variety. It was a wide-ranging and thought-provoking conversation for us, and we thought that you all would like it too, so please enjoy this discussion of Realism between myself and Zack Twamley.
…
History Impossible has been made possible by the following generous supporters on Patreon, Substack, and PayPal. Please consider donating today if you want to show some love for what I do and make and what to help keep the show and all my written content going:
David Adamcik David Alsbach Gregg Anderson Rajan Athul Robert Babeon Michael Beach Benjamin Greg Bosai Johannes Breitsameter Carol ABC Charles C Curtis Christiansen Jason Coleman Clayton Connell Cliffydeuce CR B.Cyr daddygorgon Danny Lynda Davis Paul DeCoster Regina Dick-Endrizzi Neil Dickens Nathan Diehl Bob Downing Dramicas Martin E. Eastone Gavin Edwards Howie Feltersnatch Pierre Ghazarian Josh Goedert Jayson Griesmeyer Nathan Grote Benjamin Hamilton Peter Hauck Jack Henneman Henry Eric Hodges Carey Hurst Mike Jarulic Joe6245 Lionel Joseph Thomas Justesen Mike Kalnins Bryn Kaufman Leah Kodner Benjamin Lee Constance Loucks Maddy Mounty of Madness Jose Martinez Mike Mayleben Judy McCoid Kyle Mohney Kostas Moros Ryan Mortenson Cameron Needham Shiran Skip Pacheco Mel Padden David Page Molly Pan Sr. Powell Brian Pritzl AnaR737 PJ Rader Gleb Radutsky Aleksandr Rakitin Reptilycus Matthew M. Rice Phillip Rice Terry Rosen Chris Rowe Dan S Jon Andre Saether Jake Scalia Emily Schmidt Julian Schmidt Andrew Seeber Joshua Simpson Cameron Smith Jerry Spangler timetosuccedd1995 Thomas Squeo Athal Krishna Sundarrajan Jared Cole Temple Ward Van Roy Pierre Vorupuni Robert VS Jonny Wilkie Michael Wroblewski F. You Greg Zink
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/history-impossible--5634566/support.
More from History Impossible
Hey everyone. No preamble here. Just a nice bonus as a thank you for your continued support. As the title suggests, this is an audio adaptation of an essay I wrote about the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and how it led me to reflect on my generation, that is millennials, seems to believe about itself regarding trauma, adversity, and the future.
We often hear about how the Second World War was more morally nuanced and complex than we have been led to believe. This is, to a certain extent, very true. The Axis powers meted out a level of genocidal destruction and suffering upon tens of millions of people across the world, decimating generations in places as far flung as Poland and the Philippines, and Croatia and China. To call their actions existential by their very nature is to arguably undersell the threat they posed. The Allies realized these were the stakes and were eventually faced with a very real question: what would it take to stop such a threat? It required what many have come to believe was the unthinkable: meeting destruction with destruction. And in meeting the Axis violence with more violence did indeed bring the war to its ultimate end.
In this newest episode of History Impossible we’re joined a second time by Richard Lim, host of the This American President podcast, who last appeared on this program a couple years ago to discuss the insane, contentious election of 1876. He is also the author of a new book, Refusing a Crown: How George Washington Changed the World, which releases on October 13, 2026, and covers the most significant aspect of America’s first president: his restraint from seizing power that almost certainly would have remained his.
“Because remember: Russia is a religious experience.” Those are the oft-repeated and well-said words by the host of The Eastern Border podcast, my good friend Kristaps Andrejsons. They are well-said because there are very few alternatives for explaining Russian actions, rhetoric, and political culture over the past near half-decade in its World War I-style conflict with Ukraine. The Russian religious experience, made emblematic by Kristaps’ and my favorite shared punching bag Aleksandr Dugin, is a phenomenon best understood as a more formalized and colossal version of what ISIS was ten years ago, and it helps explain why Kristaps believes the spiral of the Russian state as we currently know it is beginning in 2026.
Antizionism, as it has become, has been having a bit of a moment for going on three years. It is a tough nut to crack, given its various claims of varying legitimacy and, as we have covered more than once on History Impossible, its increasing tendency to veer into outright antisemitism, especially by those looking for a supposedly intellectual and moral veneer for their racial and geopolitical fixations. Part of the reason for this confusion is the complex intellectual history of the position, which, after 1948, became more complicated than the relatively straightforward debate over Jewish statehood before, during, and after the Holocaust.