Latest news with #UnHerd
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Inside the identity crisis in anti-woke media
The libertarian journalist Michael Moynihan felt the shift on election night 2024, after it had become clear that Donald Trump would win. He was co-hosting a livestream for The Free Press, a new publication that had boomed in response to The New York Times's leftward turn, and was ranting about the dangers Trump would pose to free speech to an impassive group of anti-woke talkers. 'This is one of those many moments when I realized that this wasn't, shall we say, a stable coalition,' he said in an email last week, after leaving a short stint at The Free Press. 'One didn't have to be especially prescient to spot those 'anti-woke' types who would just slowly become MAGA flunkies.' Moynihan's is a particularly stark example of an identity crisis now tearing through what had been one of the most vibrant slices of American media: the eclectic websites, podcasts, newsletters, and television programs that captured a reaction against left-wing speech-policing, identity politics, and social media-driven protest movements. That loose group, rooted in part in a letter published in Harper's Magazine in 2020, includes HBO's ,the digital show opinion outlets like Quillette, UnHerd and Persuasion, the Jewish online magazine Tablet, and podcasts like and . Now, they are reckoning with a president who has embraced their positions on many of their favored issues — in particular, the traditional boundaries of sex and gender, the role of affirmative action, and the left-wing slant of American academia — but who is pursuing their goals with the illiberal tactics they'd abhorred. 'There's been a crackup of the wider ecosystem,' said co-host Katie Herzog, along two lines: people who are fanatical about free speech but open to disagreement on issues from Gaza to trans rights and those who would crush their political enemies at the expense of speech; and between liberals who want to reform institutions and radicals who would like to destroy and replace them. 'There's a tendency for some media voices that rose to prominence as 'anti-woke' campaigners to become ever more reactionary. Many of them have also not adjusted to the new reality of the Trump presidency — namely, that 'anti-woke' ideas are no longer heretical and counter-establishment; they dominate the government,' said Freddie Sayers, the publisher of the venerable British conservative magazine The Spectator and of UnHerd. He said the latter outlet has been shifting its focus to follow its audience: UnHerd spends 'more time covering geopolitics, science, religion and less time on culture war issues that are waning in relevancy.' Sayers — like many others in this loosely organized sphere — tend to take only oblique shots The Free Press, founded in 2021 by former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss. Some said they were worried about getting on the wrong side of a powerful outlet; more said they like and respect Weiss and didn't want to criticize her publicly. But the outlet, by dint of its success — it told Axios it has nearly 155,000 paid subscribers — is often seen as representative of the whole group. It faces a perception, in the words of another contributor, that it's become a platform for 'moderate Trump sycophants,' in part for giving Trump credit for his hostility towards their shared enemies, and for elevating supporters like self-described 'MAGA leftie' Batya Ungar-Sargon. One investigation that exposed two low-profile employees at PBS who had focused on diversity and got them fired rubbed even some of its allies the wrong way. But it's hardly a MAGA outlet: The Free Press has published a litany of unsigned editorials criticizing Trump on deportations, Russia, the firings of US attorneys, pardons for January 6 rioters, his accepting an airplane as a gift, and other other perceived violations of the rule of law. Indeed, The Free Press is in some ways sui generis among its generation of media: Weiss is a bankable star; her co-founder and wife Nellie Bowles writes a widely-circulated and politically eclectic weekly newsletter; and The Free Press has attracted A-list columnists like the economist Tyler Cowen. Still, allies and critics alike obsess about its trajectory, and its relationship to Trump's movement. 'The Free Press is the only one that's serious about politics,' said the conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who drove public attacks from the right on Harvard University and other institutions. He dismissed the rest of the outlets as 'the permanent contrarian, hovering above the discourse casting judgement on whatever coalition is in power.' He concluded: 'The center-left liberals were not able to 'reform the institutions from within' and are no longer useful as proxies for the right,' Others see the site's trajectory differently: 'It's perfectly possible to be very anti-woke and very anti-Trump. In fact it's the only coherent liberal and old-school conservative position. But it's hard in our tribal age to find an audience that wants to read — let alone support — both,' said the veteran online journalist Andrew Sullivan. He also cited Maher as someone who has succeeded in 'threading the needle,' and said his own audience is 'used to being pissed off at least half the time.' 'I'd love that to be where The Free Press eventually finds its feet,' Sullivan added. 'It's a work in progress and has amazing talent — so here's hoping,' he some of the anti-woke outlets navigate their mixed feelings about the Trump Administration, others are making a more explicit break with the American right. One is Quillette, which was launched in 2015 by Claire Lehmann, a former psychology writer based in Australia and a prominent voice in the global debates around gender and identity who has written bluntly that 'Trans activists have no right to pervert the English language.' Quillette made a name for itself by 'criticizing the excesses of progressive activism' in academia and the media, as Lehmann put it. The publication built up a large following by questioning dominant media narratives around individuals who were driven out of academia, media, or other professional spaces for various misdeeds. But while the frequent admonishment and skepticism of progressive values helped Lehmann grow the online magazine's subscriber footprint, it also gave some readers on the right a false view of Quillette's values, which Lehmann describes as classical liberalism. In recent months, the publication has repeatedly criticized Trump, going after his nationalist economic policies, which one columnist described as 'financial illiteracy.' In a piece titled the writer Cathy Young praised the Trump administration's rollback of DEI policies and policies around gender and trans rights. But the publication said those moves paled in comparison to its missteps: its political appointments, defiance of court orders, hardline immigration stance, and trade moves. 'The dizzying rollercoaster ride of Trump's first hundred days has, in many ways, justified and even exceeded the worst fears of those Trump opponents often accused of suffering from 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' Young wrote. Quillette has also expressed skepticism of Elon Musk — and, in a particularly pointed break with the attempts to institutionalize the 'anti-woke' movement, ran a piece describing the University of Austin as constrained by its own rigid restrictions on speech and thought. Lehmann said the magazine had gotten used to criticism from the right during the COVID-19 pandemic by breaking with anti-vaccine conservatives. That move was 'costly for us financially,' Lehmann said, adding that the publication lost a potential investor and a substantial number of subscribers over its pro-vaccine position. 'Going through not being audience-captured does require some pain,' she said. 'Our mission has always been the same, and that is like we criticize anti enlightenment thinking and illiberalism where we see it. It's just that it's more salient in different areas at different points in time.' She added: 'I would encourage other media entrepreneurs to be a bit bold and disagree with their audience, because although there might be some short term pain, I think it pays off in the long run.'There's little more thrilling in media than having the cultural winds at your back. That was true for The New York Times when it tacked left, caught the wind of the Black Lives Matter movement, and turned the 1619 Project into a brand-defining juggernaut — and then found itself captured ideologically by its own success in crystallizing the progressive moment. It was true of the momentum that Weiss took from her resignation in summer into The Free Press, bringing along tens of thousands of center-left Times readers who disliked the censorious tone and often the substance of the new progressive agenda. The analogy is imperfect, but I recognize the feeling. I was lucky enough to be a blogger when 'the Web' was the thrilling opposite of the establishment, and to be running BuzzFeed News when social media itself represented a disruptive vertical. But the wind always shifts. The well-capitalized, well-known, and well-distributed outfits can poach your best talent and absorb your best ideas. The movement with which you're associated can, God forbid, win. Some of the anti-woke voices, like Harvard's Steven Pinker, are now firmly in the anti-Trump camp and decrying the excesses of anti-anti-Semitism in the pages of the Times. Others will simply be absorbed by the conservative movement. 'The decline of sustained anti-woke media seems to be a product of their own success and Trump's,' said The Spectator's Ben Domenech, who said that he saw most of that group, other than , simply becoming conservative. 'The anti-establishment thinkers became the new establishment. That makes for pretty boring content,' The Atlantic's Helen Lewis told me. Indeed, Rufo's grouse about reflexive contrarianism is what you'd expect a political activist to say. In journalism, there's nothing duller, and more soul-crushing, than being an attack dog for the party of splintering has been afoot almost since the reactionary movement's inception, when Blocked & Reported co-host Jesse Singal warned of 'anti-wokeness curdling into reactionary crankery.' The New York Times in 2020 citing, in part, the dominant role of social media: 'Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space.' The anti-woke right laid the foundation for a new illiberalism, and 'they did so in the most pernicious way possible — by smuggling censorship into American life under the banner of free speech and free thought,' David French wrote in The New York Times. Part of the new intellectual scaffolding was formed in group chats, as we explored in this space.
Times
20-05-2025
- Business
- Times
GB News owner warns of ‘shadow banning' by Meta, X and YouTube
The owner of The Spectator has warned about the threat of tech giants such as Meta, X and YouTube 'shadow banning' content and called for them to publish their algorithms. Paul Marshall, who also owns the UnHerd opinion website and a stake in GB News, said that he first became aware of the issue, in which the platforms suppress the number of people shown a particular piece of content, during Covid-19. He made the claim, along with a swipe at the TV ratings agency Barb, as part of a call for greater transparency from powerful organisations during a speech for the Pharos Foundation at Oxford University titled A Fatal Conceit — reflections of an accidental media owner on Tuesday. Marshall, 65, said that an UnHerd
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Feelings, Facts, and Our Crisis of Truth
An outbreak of measles—a disease once declared eliminated in the U.S.—has hospitalized 91 people in Texas, killing two unvaccinated school-aged children. It is a horrific disease: In severe cases, a child's immune system collapses, and they suffer seizures and brain damage from encephalitis or drown as fluid fills their lungs. And any outbreak of measles is entirely preventable. The first vaccine was introduced 62 years ago, and vaccination saved an estimated 60 million lives between 2000 and 2023 alone. Measles epidemics once represented a public health crisis, but today the disease represents a different kind of affliction—one that is both psychological and cultural in nature, and one that is surprisingly resistant to intervention. On a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, British author Douglas Murray challenged the world's most popular podcaster over his penchant for hosting 'armchair experts' who promote ideas outside of the mainstream. Specifically, Murray cited Rogan's interviews with Daryl Cooper, a podcaster who has argued that Winston Churchill was the 'real villain' of World War II, and comedian Dave Smith, who appeared on the podcast with Murray, and whose taste for criticizing Israel has never inspired him to pay a visit. Murray faced significant backlash from right-wing influencers on social media, while writers at The Atlantic, UnHerd, and Quillette rallied behind him. Yet despite the lengthy conversation, which spanned hours, some crucial concepts were left unaddressed. The main issue that Murray did not raise was that in the ecosystem that Rogan occupies, many podcasters and their listeners do not read. Murray brought his norms of journalistic rigor into a largely postliterate culture, where information is consumed via aural and visual formats as opposed to the written word. It was a clash of cultures between an author and journalist who primarily lives in the world of printed text, and those who primarily live in the world of conversation and storytelling. This postliterate shift isn't merely occurring in digital media ecosystems—it has penetrated some of the world's most prestigious educational institutions. In an article for The Atlantic last year, Rose Horowitch described students at elite universities who struggle to read an entire book. One first-year student confessed she had never been assigned a complete book throughout high school—only excerpts and articles. It's important to distinguish the difference between a literate and postliterate world. For centuries, women died in childbirth at relatively steady rates. Only when doctors started sharing knowledge about obstetric techniques in medical journals did mortality rates start to decline. Sharing knowledge via the written word enhances the accuracy of the transmitted information, whereas oral reinterpretations lend themselves to inefficiency and error. When an audio-visual narrative culture—which lacks the precision and permanence of written documentation—combines with amateur methods, our collective ability to discern the truth simply deteriorates. The problem with armchair experts like Daryl Cooper and Dave Smith isn't what they claim but how they reach those claims. Their conclusions may occasionally align with reality, but they arrive there without the rigor that ensures reliability. When someone forms theories about Churchill or Israel without consulting primary sources or visiting the region, they're charting territory blindly. Criticism, therefore, should focus on process instead of results: Their flawed methods inevitably produce unreliable findings, even when they occasionally stumble onto correct conclusions by chance. When it comes to working out what is true in the world, there is a hierarchy of method. If I fear I have cancer in my body, I am perfectly free to visit a psychic if I choose to—but her technique for discovering a malignant growth is going to be less effective than an oncologist's. This doesn't mean that the oncologist is always right, or that the psychic is always wrong. What it means is that the tools used by the oncologist—blood tests and radiology—are simply better than sensing, reading tea leaves, or consulting the stars. Other empirical professions have a hierarchy of methods, too. History scholars examine secondary sources (written accounts of the time period), but also primary sources (manuscripts and contemporaneous eyewitness accounts) of the era they wish to understand. Just as someone who is unable to replace the carburetor of his car cannot call himself a mechanic, anyone who does not consult primary sources in their research cannot call themselves a historian. Journalism also has a method. While not all journalism is alike (this opinion column is not the same as an investigative piece), one expects journalists reporting on a conflict or protest or natural disaster to do so from the ground. These empirical professions each employ graduated standards of evidence. Gut intuition, vibes, tea leaves, psychic readings, tarot cards, revelations, and superstition fall below the threshold of acceptable evidence. Just above this threshold sit anecdotes and case studies: 'My auntie said she saw a UFO last night.' One level higher are cohort studies, synthesis of secondary sources, and analysis of contemporaneous reports. At the top sit randomized controlled trials, original research using primary sources, and on-the-ground investigative reporting. Since the mid-20th century, many elite institutions have rejected the philosophical orientation of empiricism in favor of a faddish postmodern view of the world. Postmodernism, alongside romanticist and fundamentalist religious modes of thought, rejects the notion that humans are able to discern what is true through data collection and experimentation. Romanticists believe that the truth is discerned through feeling, fundamentalists through revelation—and postmodernists believe that there is no such thing as truth at all. Our new media ecosystem blends all three of these outlooks, rendering empiricism a quaint relic of another age. Tucker Carlson speaks of being attacked by demons in his sleep, Candace Owens dismisses the moon landing as 'fake and gay,' and Russell Brand sells amulets to his followers to ward off 'evil energies.' During and after the pandemic, Bret Weinstein—an evolutionary biologist who was once hounded out of Evergreen State College, and who is now a professional podcaster—claimed mRNA vaccines were 'unsafe for women,' declared to Tucker Carlson that '17 million people' had died from COVID vaccines, and pronounced this imaginary death toll 'a great tragedy of history.' But every step Weinstein took away from rigor increased his audience and influence. Peer-reviewed research is slow and time-consuming. Sharing lurid stories of vaccine injuries is easy. Today, Bret Weinstein's conspiracy theories span multiple domains. Documented by Chris Kavanagh, of the Decoding the Gurus podcast, and Jesse Singal, independent journalist and Dispatch contributor, Weinstein has suggested that Israel's unpreparedness for the October 7 attack was deliberately orchestrated by powerful interests to create division among COVID skeptics; China's one-child policy was strategically designed to create an army of males to infiltrate the U.S. military; and that his own groundbreaking telomere research was stolen by one of his peers—who went on to win a Nobel Prize. The continuous positive feedback from a growing audience doesn't just reward methodological shortcuts—it demands them. There is no clearer demonstration of how audience capture drives counter-Enlightenment thinking in digital media than Weinstein's trajectory. Rigor dampens engagement, and uncertainty saps attention. The marketplace of ideas has been subsumed by a marketplace of emotions, where incentives reward those with the sloppiest procedures. In his 2022 book, Liberalism and Its Discontents, Francis Fukuyama writes: The attack on modern natural science and Enlightenment approaches to cognition began on the left, as critical theory exposed the hidden agendas of the elites who promoted them. This approach denied the possibility of true objectivity, and valued instead subjective feelings and emotions as a source of authenticity. Skepticism has now drifted over to the populist right, who see elites using these same scientific cognitive modes not as techniques to marginalize minority communities, but rather to victimize the former mainstream. What Fukuyama described is an ideological inversion: The left's tools of deconstruction are now used by the right. Pandora's box has been opened, and epistemic nihilism cannot be selectively applied. In 2017, a Canadian political scientist, Matt McManus, wrote for Quillette: 'postmodern conservatives are not substantially different from their leftwing opponents. Both regard identity as the locus of epistemic and moral validity, and both are preoccupied with achieving power since that is their only major concern.' We tend to take our modern world for granted—running water, piped-in gas, an electricity grid, internet, superabundant consumer goods, medicines, and life-saving surgeries performed under anesthesia. Citizens in a modern liberal society are like fish in water: They don't comprehend the luxuriousness of their lifestyles and could not survive without them. We are surrounded by the fruits of liberal capitalism to the point where critics of this system rely on the very tools created by it to condemn it. Yet success has bred complacency, and in the third decade of the 21st century, this complacency is now coming home to roost. The United States, a country founded on Enlightenment ideals, is at a crossroads: Trade policy is conducted according to vibes, anti-vaccine propaganda is spread by the highest health official of the land, and children now die of a once-eliminated disease.A path forward requires a counter-counter-Enlightenment. This doesn't require censorship or an appeal to authority, but a return to rigor and the written word. While podcasts and videos are undoubtedly entertaining, their ability to transmit knowledge is time-consuming and inefficient. They are the equivalent of the fireside yarn—what humans did before we emerged from our caves. Text may not be as popular as a three-hour podcast conversation, but it remains the form of knowledge most likely to be accessed by future generations. Principia Mathematica was not a podcast, and On the Origins of Species was not a video series. Technologies may continue to create disruption, but we won't enter a new Dark Age unless we forget the ability to read and write.
Time of India
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Why Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek wants Donald Trump to survive? And it's not what you think
Slavoj Žižek recently shared in an interview why he fears the rise of JD Vance over Donald Trump. While Trump's chaotic leadership may be unpredictable, Žižek argues that Vance's cold, efficient style could be far more dangerous. For Žižek, Trump's unpredictability might at least offer transparency, whereas Vance's calculated approach could hide more sinister motives. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The 'Robot' Theory: Why Vance Terrifies Žižek The Left and Right: A Philosophical Digression Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Žižek's Stark Prediction A Deeper Dive into Žižek's Philosophical Worldview A World Where Cold Precision Meets Brute Force In an unexpected twist of philosophical discourse , Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek has shared his unorthodox opinion on why he wants Donald Trump to survive the next few years in power. During an interview with UnHerd, Žižek, known for his provocative insights and unapologetic takes, raised eyebrows when he suggested that the world might actually be better off with Trump rather than his vice president, JD Vance, stepping into the Oval Office. Here's what the controversial philosopher had to first glance, Žižek's comments seem like a mere joke, but knowing his signature style, there's more depth lurking beneath the surface. When asked about his thoughts on the future of American politics, Žižek didn't hold back. He boldly stated, "I'm more afraid if Trump dies, if Vance takes over. With Vance, it's terrifying coldness and so on. He is a robot." For the Slovenian thinker, Vance's calculated, emotionless political approach was more dangerous than Trump's 'brutal' Žižek veered off into a larger critique of today's political landscape , his comments on the left-right dichotomy in global politics only added more intrigue to his views. With sharp sarcasm, he remarked, "If you look at the UK today, you have one big moderate right party, you call it Labour Party, no? And then you have a more crazy right, which does what one would expect from the left." His statement was more than just a political jab; it was an existential critique of how the current political systems have morphed into a paradox where the supposed 'left' has adopted some of the most extreme policies typically associated with the right.Žižek's assertion that the political spectrum itself is fractured—particularly in the context of the U.S. and U.K.—adds a layer of complexity to his reasoning. His belief that the system has grown so unpredictable that Trump's brute force may actually be the lesser of two evils is a reflection of his broader concern about the state of contemporary politics In one of his more startling admissions, Žižek shared that he plans to write a text with the title "I pray that Trump will survive the next couple of years." His rationale isn't that he endorses Trump's policies or behavior—far from it. Rather, it's that Žižek sees the possibility of a much darker political future under someone like Vance. To him, a cold, calculating leader who operates without the semblance of emotional or political spontaneity could be more detrimental to democracy than Trump's chaotic, often disorganized, form of many would argue that Trump's unpredictability poses its own set of risks, Žižek's view on Vance's calculated coldness raises an interesting question: Is it better to have a leader whose moves are at least somewhat transparent, even if they are erratic, or one who operates with a level of chilling precision, where motives and decisions are harder to predict and understand?Slavoj Žižek, a towering figure in contemporary Marxist philosophy , is no stranger to making controversial, often provocative statements. Known for his work in cultural theory, political analysis, and psychoanalysis, Žižek has a history of delving into the darkest corners of modern thought. His critique of contemporary politics, media, and even pop culture reflects his interest in dissecting societal structures through the lens of Hegelian philosophy, Marxism, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.Žižek's thoughts on Trump and Vance are less about political allegiance and more about dissecting the very nature of power and leadership in today's world. For him, the unpredictability of a figure like Trump may at least keep the political environment somewhat transparent, while the cold efficiency of a figure like Vance could conceal deeper, more troubling a political landscape increasingly defined by figures who seem to defy the norms of traditional governance, Žižek's reflections on Trump and Vance offer a jarring but necessary perspective. Whether you agree with his reasoning or not, his assertion that Trump's survival could be the lesser evil compared to the rise of a more calculated, robotic leader is a thought-provoking one. If nothing else, it shows how far political discourse has moved from traditional ideologies into a murky zone where human emotion and cold precision can have equally troubling Žižek himself might say, this is no longer just about politics—it's about philosophy, power, and the unpredictable future of democracy itself.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - So was Poland a sucker when it supported the US in Iraq?
Vice President JD Vance shocked many across the Atlantic when in a recent interview with UnHerd he argued that Europe should have done more to stop the war against Saddam Hussein more than two decades ago. According to the vice president, standing by the United States when it was in particular need had been a mistake. This offers an important signpost for U.S. allies charting their futures. Much of Europe was rightly skeptical of the idea that democracy could be introduced by armed intervention in Iraq, believing war could only turn a rogue state into a failed state. Although a failed state is better than a rogue state that has weapons of mass destruction, Baghdad did not, as it turned out, possess such weapons. This upended all earlier calculations. Especially when the world learned that the new failed state had become a breeding ground for pathologies such as terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking and illegal migration. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld contrasted the 'old Europe,' which under the leadership of French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was building an anti-American alliance, with the 'new Europe,' which supported the United States. The French president said at the time that Poland had wasted an opportunity to 'sit silent' — and Vance has now agreed with him. Although Polish public opinion viewed the intervention in Iraq dimly, Poland's political elite saw it as a way to strengthen the alliance with the U.S. and the country's international standing. An 'instinctive Atlanticism' prevailed, regardless of which party was in power. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was not far from the truth when he labeled Poland the most pro-American country on the globe, including even the United States. Poland sent a contingent of 2,500 troops to Iraq in 2003. After Denmark's refusal, the Poles took command of the Multinational Division Central-South — MND-CS, taking responsibility for the South-Central-Zone, inhabited by nearly 4 million Iraqis. The Polish-led sector included 8,500 troops from 22 countries. Nor did Polish forces in Iraq avoid losses: 28 Poles lost their lives and 150 were wounded. Participation in the Iraq operation was assessed by the Polish establishment as a military success, a political draw and an economic failure. The experience gained in logistics, operations and command over a significant multinational force was applied to the reform of the armed forces and the introduction of a professional army. Poland's political independence and agency on the international stage were also strengthened. However, hopes for economic benefits in the form of lucrative contracts for Polish companies did not materialize. Thus, until recently we believed that — in the overall — we had been right to support the United States at the time. Vice President Vance, however, argues that we joined the wrong side: that by engaging militarily in Iraq as a U.S. 'vassal' we contributed to a strategic disaster. In other words, we were suckers: we should have opposed Washington along with 'old Europe.' But the vice president's take is ahistorical. In 2003 no force existed that could have prevented the administration of President George W. Bush from invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein. The U.S. would have launched military operations even without its allies, no matter the diminished legitimacy of such a war. It was not until years after the invasion of Iraq that the enormous costs (human, financial, political) became apparent and turned the American public against the whole enterprise. The vice president suggests to America's allies that they should actively oppose those U.S. moves they deem questionable or misguided. If they fail to do so, they will be declared co-responsible for the strategic disasters of U.S. policy such as the one in Iraq. But was this in fact JD Vance's intended message? Jacek Czaputowicz was Poland's foreign minister from 2018 to 2020. He is professor at the University of Warsaw. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
