Michael McFaul on Autocrats vs. Democrats and Why Global Engagement Still Matters
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 political scientist, Hoover Institution senior fellow, and former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation—joined host Larry Diamond to examine a world he argues is moving toward greater instability. Drawing on his new book, Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global Disorder, McFaul explored why international affairs are not a distant concern, how authoritarian powers are challenging long-standing norms, and what democratic societies can do to compete without repeating past mistakes.
A World Order Under Pressure
McFaul’s central thesis is bold but straightforward: the international system is shifting as autocratic powers—especially Russia and China—push to weaken and reshape the post–World War II order that emphasized sovereignty, limits on territorial conquest, and institutions meant to reduce conflict. He urged the audience to see great-power competition as more than a contest of weapons or GDP. In his framework, the direction of world affairs depends on three variables working together: power, regime type, and the choices of individual leaders.
That lens also helps explain why the current moment feels so volatile. Power dynamics have been shifting toward China, Russia has proven willing to use force to change borders, and leaders’ decisions can either reinforce restraint—or reward aggression.
“Why Should Americans Care?”
A pivotal moment in the conversation came when Diamond voiced a question many Americans ask: with affordability pressures, inequality, and economic anxiety at home, why should a family in the middle of the country care about Ukraine, Taiwan, or global institutions?
McFaul’s answer leaned on history. The United States has often been tempted by the idea that oceans and distance make global turmoil someone else’s problem. But the interwar period, he argued, shows the danger of assuming crises abroad won’t reach American shores. Public opinion in the 1930s frequently viewed overseas conflicts as “not our fight”—until World War II became unavoidable.
His larger point: it would be nice to live in a world where Americans could focus only on domestic challenges. But that is not the world we inhabit, and disengagement can carry steep costs later.
Deterrence as War Prevention
From there, McFaul emphasized deterrence—not as a call for escalation, but as a strategy to avoid larger wars. On Ukraine, he argued that helping Ukrainians defend themselves now reduces the risk of a more dangerous scenario later, particularly if a victorious Russia sets its sights on NATO territory. On Taiwan, he framed preparedness and allied coordination as essential to preventing conflict with China, not inviting it.
The underlying logic is pragmatic: supporting partners who are already fighting for their sovereignty can be a safer, less costly option than being pulled into a larger war under worse conditions.
Lessons from the Cold War: Avoid the Errors, Keep the Strengths
McFaul also warned against using the Cold War as a simplistic blueprint. Democracies made real mistakes, including overreach and the temptation to treat every conflict as part of a single global struggle. Those errors—along with domestic paranoia and alliances of convenience with abusive regimes—are cautionary tales.
At the same time, he argued democracies also demonstrated strengths worth protecting: alliances, economic performance, innovation, immigration-driven dynamism, and soft-power institutions that expanded influence without direct force. In McFaul’s view, weakening those tools amounts to “unilateral disarmament” in a long competition that depends on credibility and capacity.
Don’t Bet Against Democracy Yet
McFaul closed on a note of guarded optimism. He argued democracies still possess enormous advantages—especially when united—and that civic mobilization matters. The health of democracy at home, he suggested, is inseparable from U.S. strength abroad. The challenge is not merely about policy disputes, but about protecting the rules of the democratic game itself.
In the end, the conversation offered a clear takeaway: the global struggle between autocrats and democrats is not abstract. It shapes security, prosperity, and the future of democratic norms—and it demands engagement grounded in both realism and values.
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.