Michael McFaul on Autocrats, Democracies, and Choosing the Right Response to a Dangerous World
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from December 17, 2025 | Autocrats vs. Democrats: The New Global Disorder. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, Michael McFaul—Stanford University political scientist, Hoover Institution senior fellow, and former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation—joined Larry Diamond for a wide-ranging conversation about his new book, Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global Disorder. The discussion focused on diagnosing today’s global threat environment and, more importantly, how democratic nations should respond without repeating the strategic and moral errors of the past.
Diagnosing the Threat: Power, Regimes, and Leaders
McFaul framed the current global moment as a convergence of three forces: shifting balances of power, the rise of autocratic regimes, and the decisions of individual leaders. While China poses the most significant long-term challenge because of its economic and military capabilities, McFaul warned against underestimating Russia. Moscow may be weaker than Beijing, but it has proven far more willing to use force to destabilize borders, undermine democracies, and test international resolve.
At the heart of the struggle, McFaul argued, is not simply territory or influence but the rules of the global system itself. Autocratic powers are actively challenging norms that emerged after World War II—especially the rejection of territorial conquest and the use of international institutions to manage conflict. This contest over “order” is what makes the current era so dangerous.
Deterrence, Not Disengagement
A recurring theme in the conversation was deterrence as a tool for preventing war rather than provoking it. McFaul stressed that wavering signals from the United States and its allies can invite aggression. Supporting Ukraine’s defense today, he argued, is a way to prevent a far broader conflict tomorrow—particularly one that could trigger NATO’s collective defense obligations.
Similarly, in East Asia, McFaul framed deterrence around Taiwan as a stabilizing force. Helping Taiwan prepare for its own defense, in coordination with allies like Japan, is intended to raise the costs of aggression and reduce the likelihood that China would resort to force. In both cases, he emphasized that deterrence works best when it is credible, collective, and consistent.
Learning from Cold War Mistakes
While McFaul sees meaningful parallels to the Cold War, he cautioned strongly against treating it as a simple playbook. Democracies made serious mistakes during that period, including strategic overreach, conflating nationalism with ideological threats, and embracing unsavory dictators in the name of containment. Those errors, he warned, should not be repeated.
Just as important is avoiding domestic excesses. McFaul pointed to the dangers of internal paranoia and the erosion of democratic norms at home, arguing that a society that undermines its own institutions weakens its standing abroad. Winning a global competition, he suggested, requires discipline as much as resolve.
The Strengths Democracies Must Rebuild
McFaul also outlined what worked during the Cold War—and why those strengths matter again. Democratic alliances, he said, were the United States’ greatest advantage, allowing free societies to pool economic and military power voluntarily. Economic performance and long-term investments in innovation, including research universities, proved decisive. Immigration, too, served as a strategic asset by attracting talent from around the world, even from rival states.
Equally critical were soft-power institutions such as USAID, Voice of America, and international exchange programs. These tools expanded influence, supported democratic movements, and offered alternatives to authoritarian models without relying on force.
Applying the Strategy to Today’s Crises
The conversation applied this framework to current flashpoints. In Venezuela, McFaul supported democratic change but rejected military invasion, arguing instead for sustained economic pressure, diplomatic coordination, and efforts to split authoritarian elites. In Ukraine, he acknowledged past failures to deter Russia earlier but warned that negotiations today must be backed by real leverage, not unilateral concessions.
A Cautious Optimism
McFaul closed with a guarded but firm optimism. Democracies, he argued, still possess greater combined power than autocratic rivals—if they remain united. Civic engagement, elections, and resilient institutions continue to matter. The challenge ahead is not only geopolitical but democratic: defending the rules of the game at home while choosing strategies abroad that are strong, smart, and sustainable.
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.