Source — AITW Ep091 — Ukraine¶

Episode Metadata¶

Field	Value
Episode number	91
Title	Ep. 91: Ukraine
Publication date	2022-01-30
Recording date	Saturday, 29 January 2022
Guests	None (Allan and Darren only)
Allan present	Yes
Format	Single-topic deep-dive on the Ukraine crisis, recorded pre-invasion (Russia invaded 24 February 2022). Reading segment at close.

Summary¶

Recorded three weeks before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, this episode is notable less for its predictive accuracy than for what it reveals about Allan's method when operating outside his primary expertise. He announces this limitation immediately and precisely — "I may be a notch or two more knowledgeable about the politics of Central Europe and the Russian borderlands than I am about cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens, but it's not all that much" — and then proposes a framework for what he and Darren can usefully contribute: the episode will use Ukraine to illuminate questions they do know about, international relations theory and Australian foreign policy. This is a practitioner's intellectual honesty and a teacher's sense of how to turn a gap into a lesson.

The most durable contributions are Allan's structural formulations, which hold independently of the invasion's outcome. "No perfect answer, only a balancing of options, seems to me a pretty reasonable definition of the job of foreign policy" is one of the most compressed definitions of the practitioner's vocation in the corpus. "Prudence is the best adjective to describe the aims of foreign policy" follows shortly after. Both are delivered in response to Darren's theoretical framing, where Allan consistently redirects from theory to practice.

His assessment of Australia's role — "essentially a bystander in the Ukraine crisis without much influence to wield beyond declaratory statements" and "we're not going to shift anything or anyone" — is a frank structural statement. His observation that Australia's response has "mirrored so closely that of Washington and London" with no apparent engagement with France, Germany, or the Dutch, and that French calls might not be taken ("or maybe they wouldn't take our phone calls"), is both sharp and funny.

The close contains Allan's most aesthetically generous recommendation to date: Spielberg's West Side Story remake, which he saw with only two other people in a cinema and found to be "a masterpiece." He did not expect this. His closing plea to support local cinemas — "whatever movie you want to see, don't wait for Netflix, but get off your backside and support your local movie theater" — is one of the most personally direct injunctions in the series.

Key Quotations¶

Announcing the limits of expertise — "a notch or two"¶

"I may be a notch or two more knowledgeable about the politics of Central Europe and the Russian borderlands than I am about cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens, but it's not all that much. Like you, though, I've been reading and listening widely to people with deeper knowledge than us, but I think it'll be most useful to our listeners if we use this podcast to draw on what's happening in order to illustrate issues that you and I do know more about — international relations and political science, in your case, and Australian foreign policy in mine."

— [00:05:08.720 --> 00:10:55.160]

The self-limitation is characteristic but the proposed solution is equally characteristic: he doesn't withdraw from the topic, he reframes it around what he can actually contribute. "Australian foreign policy in mine" — the possessive is precise and self-aware. He knows exactly where his authority lies and redirects the episode accordingly. Compare with "you'd have to speak Mandarin to know" (Ep089) and "hardly long enough to make long-term judgments" (Ep005): Allan consistently marks the edges of his competence before proceeding.

"No perfect answer, only a balancing of options"¶

"No perfect answer, only a balancing of options, seems to me a pretty reasonable definition of the job of foreign policy."

— [00:21:09.520 --> 00:23:10.720]

A practitioner's definition, not a theorist's. Allan derives it from his reading of the Ukraine situation — specifically from his sympathy for Douthat's realist framing over Fukuyama's democratic idealism — but it is clearly a general principle he has held for a long time. It connects to his recurring "murky shades of grey" formulation, to his self-description as an analyst rather than a strategist, and to his resistance throughout the corpus to binary or teleological frameworks. Foreign policy is not the pursuit of the best outcome; it is the management of the least-bad ones.

"Prudence is the best adjective to describe the aims of foreign policy"¶

"Prudence is the best adjective to describe the aims of foreign policy."

— [00:23:21.160 --> 00:23:59.580]

Single sentence, delivered as a direct response to Darren's observation that international relations is "even more grim" than economics. Allan refuses the grimness and offers a corrective: the discipline is not grim, it is prudent. The distinction matters: prudence is practical wisdom exercised under uncertainty, not pessimism. It connects directly to his definition of himself as an analyst who sees shades of grey and to his consistent preference for sober, bounded judgments over dramatic ones.

Mongolia analogy — sovereignty is not absolute¶

"Surely all nation states except the largest are curtailed in their sovereign choices by a whole range of factors. Mongolia, for example, might think that it could maximise its opportunities and security by entering into an alliance with the US, but that's never going to happen. So our theory can't be predicated on the right of each state to determine its own future. That's the job of foreign policy — which is the way the state acts within the parameters available to it to maximise its space in the international system and the choices available to it at any one time."

— [00:13:58.180 --> 00:14:36.200]

Allan's most structurally precise statement on the gap between ideal sovereignty and practical statecraft. The Mongolia example is chosen carefully: it is not Ukraine, not a current case, but a clean hypothetical that isolates the structural point without political loading. "The parameters available to it" — this is the practitioner's vocabulary, the analyst's frame. The definition of foreign policy embedded here ("the way the state acts within the parameters available to it to maximise its space in the international system") is consistent with his "least bad balancing of options" formulation a few minutes later: both describe a discipline of constrained choice, not ideal outcome.

Fukuyama critique — "does not have anything to say about how"¶

"Fukuyama, I know, is frequently verbal and I can understand his sympathy for the Democrats he knows in Ukraine, even though he also acknowledges how flawed the system is. But the problem I have with his argument is that he does not have anything to say about how the US might go about protecting Ukraine and what it should be willing to put at stake."

— [00:21:46.740 --> 00:23:10.720]

Allan's critique of Fukuyama is the practitioner's critique of the theorist: moral clarity without operational content. "He does not have anything to say about how" — the "how" is what practitioners do. He is not dismissing democracy promotion; he is demanding that it come with an account of costs and means. Compare his recurring complaint about policy announcements without implementation detail (AUKUS, the PM's Olympic boycott statement): Allan consistently asks not what but how. "Frequently verbal" is dry and slightly barbed — a phrase for someone who speaks a great deal without operational consequence.

Australia as bystander — "we're not going to shift anything or anyone"¶

"I assume we can agree from what you just said that Australia is essentially a bystander in the Ukraine crisis without much influence to wield beyond declaratory statements... To be clear, though, saying that Australia is an observer far away from the conflict is not the same thing as saying that the situation is unimportant to Australia... But to be blunt, we're not going to shift anything or anyone."

— [00:32:12.880 --> 00:35:50.960]

The characteristic two-step: state the blunt structural truth (bystander, no influence), then immediately clarify what that does not mean (the situation is not unimportant). "To be blunt" is his signal for the unvarnished assessment. He then turns this into a pointed observation: Australia's response has tracked Washington and London almost exactly, with no reported engagement with France, Germany, or other European partners. His concern is not Australia's lack of influence in Ukraine but the narrowing of its diplomatic horizon to the Anglosphere.

"Or maybe they wouldn't take our phone calls"¶

"Could it have been a very low-cost thing for Canberra to tell Paris we would support them in any way was needed? And maybe we did behind the scenes." / "Or maybe they wouldn't take our phone calls."

— [00:35:52.320 --> 00:36:08.800]

A two-line exchange, Darren setting it up and Allan delivering. The sharpness is in the brevity: after the AUKUS text-message leak (Ep087), Australia's standing with Paris had deteriorated to the point where the French might simply not answer. Allan states this without elaboration. The dry fatalism — "or maybe they wouldn't take our phone calls" — is characteristic of his bleaker one-liners. It lands and he moves on.

West Side Story — "a masterpiece, and I didn't expect that"¶

"I just wanted to note the experience I had last week of watching Steven Spielberg's remake of the Bernstein Sondheim musical West Side Story. I mention this because I think the film is a masterpiece, and I didn't expect that. It remains set in the middle of the last century, but the subtle new screenplay by the playwright Tony Kushner has remarkably relevant things to say about contemporary American society. And finally, I watched it with only two other people in the entire cinema."

— [00:40:12.220 --> 00:42:12.320]

"A masterpiece, and I didn't expect that" — the surprise is important. Allan did not go with expectations calibrated for a masterpiece; he went to a cinema showing a remake and was genuinely astonished by what he found. The elements he names — Bernstein, Sondheim, Kushner, the contemporary relevance, the mid-century setting held against modern American society — reveal familiarity with the cultural tradition, not just the film. He knows the original well enough to assess what Kushner changed and why it works. The two-other-people detail shifts this into a small, specific, observed experience — a specific evening, a specific cinema. It is one of the few moments in the corpus where Allan is visibly present in a non-political, non-professional scene.

Cinema plea — "get off your backside"¶

"So here's a plea. Whatever movie you want to see, don't wait for Netflix, but get off your backside and support your local movie theater."

— [00:40:12.220 --> 00:42:12.320]

One of the most direct personal injunctions in the corpus. "Get off your backside" is informal, warm, and slightly imperious — he knows what's right and he wants listeners to do it. The plea is also quietly elegiac: the cinema experience "is certainly how West Side Story should be seen" and he fears it "may be in peril." This connects to his general cultural conservatism about forms of engagement: he reads second-hand books, he goes to the cinema, he is a "conscientious objector to social media." He values the embodied, communal, slow encounter with cultural works.

"More Marvel superheroes, in other words"¶

[Darren: "The only things that are good on the very largest screens are going to be economically viable for that in-cinema experience."] / "More Marvel superheroes, in other words."

— [00:42:59.360 --> 00:43:01.740]

Three words of compressed contempt, then silence. He does not develop the point; he does not need to. Consistent with his cultural formation — Velvet Underground (Ep088), West Side Story, second-hand bookshops in Carlton — Allan's aesthetic preferences run towards complexity, craft, and historical depth. The superhero blockbuster is the opposite of all three.

Biographical Fragments¶

Evidence type: New

Cinema-going — Allan goes to the cinema alone or with a very small group; he was one of three people watching West Side Story at his local cinema in late January 2022. He found it a masterpiece. This confirms him as a cinema-goer as well as a reader, and as someone with aesthetic judgments that can be surprised. (Ep091)
Bernstein/Sondheim/Kushner familiarity — Allan knows the original West Side Story musical well enough to assess Kushner's adaptation, names the composer, lyricist, and playwright separately, and judges the contemporary relevance of the screenplay. Cultural formation in mid-century American musical theatre. (Ep091)

Evidence type: Reinforcing

Non-expert self-disclosure — Explicit statement that Ukraine and Central European politics are outside his deep expertise; he has been reading in to fill gaps. Consistent with his general practice of marking the limits of his authority before proceeding. (Ep091)
"Australian foreign policy in mine" — reaffirms the boundary of his professional authority as he defines it. (Ep091)

Style and Method Evidence¶

Reframing around competence: when out of his depth, Allan proposes a framework for what he can contribute ("Australian foreign policy in mine") rather than performing expertise he doesn't have.
Practitioner definitions under pressure: both "no perfect answer, only a balancing of options" and "prudence is the best adjective" are delivered in exchanges where theory is being pushed at him; he consistently responds by anchoring theory to practice.
Mongolia as clean hypothetical: when making a structural argument, he reaches for a case that isolates the variable without political loading. The example is precise and disposable — he uses it to make the point and moves on.
"Or maybe they wouldn't take our phone calls": the one-liner as structural diagnosis. Allan does not labour the AUKUS-France fallout; he names its consequence in seven words.
Cinema as embodied presence: the two-other-people detail is one of the few moments in the corpus where Allan is placed in a specific physical scene. He notices who else is there; the solitude of the experience is part of its meaning.
"More Marvel superheroes, in other words": contempt delivered in three words and not developed. He trusts listeners to follow.

Reading, Listening and Watching¶

Allan — Greg Earl, Lowy Interpreter, on cryptocurrency and Australian foreign aid

"I just plugged a couple of the gaps in my Bitcoin ignorance by reading a really excellent review piece in the Lowy Interpreter by Greg Earl. The article covered the international implications for developing countries of the use of cryptocurrencies, partly — I hadn't understood this — to reduce the costs of overseas remittances. And he also very usefully used the release before Christmas of the government's mid-year economic and fiscal outlook... to examine where precisely Australia's money is going in foreign policy."

— [00:40:12.220 --> 00:42:12.320]

Allan reads outside his comfort zone on cryptocurrency specifically because he has identified a gap: "I hadn't understood this." The self-disclosure of ignorance is characteristic; what is equally characteristic is that he fills the gap and then immediately connects it to Australian foreign policy. The observation that "the Pacific step-up is looking more and more like a Papua New Guinea rescue program" is his distillation of the Earl piece — crisp and slightly bleak.

Allan — Steven Spielberg, West Side Story (2021 film)

(See Key Quotations above.)

Open Questions¶

The invasion happens 24 February, four weeks after recording. Ep093 is titled "The Invasion of Ukraine and Updating Priors." Does Allan explicitly return to his pre-invasion assessment and update it? Does he acknowledge his Ep090 "calm year" prediction?
"Or maybe they wouldn't take our phone calls" — is this the last reference to the France-Australia relationship in the corpus before the Albanese government begins diplomatic repair? Or does it appear again in Ep092 (the election foreign policy debate)?
"Prudence is the best adjective to describe the aims of foreign policy" — does Allan use the word "prudence" elsewhere in the corpus as a preferred descriptor for foreign policy method?
The cinema visit: does Allan make any further cultural recommendations that place him in a cinema, theatre, or concert venue? Is there a pattern of embodied cultural engagement distinct from his book and podcast recommendations?
His appreciation of Tony Kushner's screenplay — Kushner is most famous for Angels in America (1991/93), a major work of American political theatre. Does this reference point to a broader engagement with political theatre as a form?