The Buffer State

When Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, or Xi Jinping, what does the image itself accomplish before any deal is signed?In this episode of Buffer State, Sasha Stern and Reid Smith sit down with Minseon Ku to explore the role of political optics, presidential summits, and face-to-face meetings with adversaries.Ku argues that these encounters cannot be judged only by treaties, concessions, or immediate policy outcomes. In some of the most consequential meetings between rival states, the handshake, the photograph, and the public interaction between leaders can reshape how audiences understand an adversary — and what kinds of foreign policy become possible afterward.The conversation uses Donald Trump’s meetings with Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping to examine whether meeting an adversary legitimizes them, why summit diplomacy can matter even without a major agreement, and how political imagery can shape public perceptions. The discussion also covers South Korea–Japan relations, Reagan and Gorbachev, U.S.–North Korea negotiations, the humanization of political enemies, and the growing personalization of American diplomacy. finalCan a summit change public opinion even when no deal is reached? Let us know what you think in the comments.Topics include:00:00 Intro02:09 Handshakes, Optics, and Diplomatic Theater07:47 Meeting Adversaries and the Politics of Legitimacy10:52 How Modern Summit Diplomacy Works18:38 Trump, North Korea, and the Cost of Talking28:20 How Summits Shape Public Perception38:04 Why Summit Optics Matter

Why does U.S. foreign policy stay stuck even when Washington knows its prioritieshave changed? As China becomes the central long-term challenge, the United States remains heavily committed to the Middle East and Europe, and the machinery of American foreign policy is built to move slowly.

In this episode of Buffer State, Sasha Stern, Reid Smith, and Chart Westcott sit down with Christopher S. Chivvis, Director of the American Statecraft Programat the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. They discuss bureaucraticrealism, the Pentagon, the U.S. pivot to Asia, whether America should pull backfrom the Middle East and Europe, and the risks surrounding China, Taiwan, thePhilippines, NATO, and U.S. alliances.

Topics / Chapters:

00:00 Why America needs to pivot away from the Middle East02:01 Why U.S. foreign policy is so difficult to change04:14 Bureaucratic realism and the Pentagon08:01 The Pentagon, think tanks, and the foreign policy “blob”15:03 Why America has struggled to pivot to Asia17:40 Middle East vs. Europe: where should the U.S. pull back?21:08 Congress, NATO, and resistance to military withdrawal27:28 Can Europe actually help America confront China?30:39 The U.S.-Philippines alliance and the South China Sea38:01 How a conflict with the Philippines could escalate into war with China40:23 What does “beating China” actually mean?48:34 Why more allies are not necessarily better51:25 NATO expansion, Finland, and Sweden53:51 Chris Chivvis’ prediction for U.S. foreign policy

Watch the full discussion and subscribe to Buffer State for more conversations on U.S. foreign policy, geopolitics, defense strategy, grand strategy, and American power.

American foreign policy is supposed to be made through presidents, Congress, cabinet agencies, and the National Security Council. In practice, the process is far messier.In this episode of Buffer State, Sasha Stern, Reid Smith, and Justin Logan look inside Washington’s policy machine, the institutions, incentives, personal relationships, and media ecosystem that shape American foreign policy.The conversation explores how the formal policymaking process is supposed to work, why academia and think tanks play very different roles, how Congress has lost influence relative to the executive branch, and why access to policymakers can matter as much as ideas themselves. They also examine how think tanks can provide intellectual cover for policies officials already want to pursue, the growing influence of cable news and new media, and what it actually takes to shape foreign policy in Washington.Chapters:00:00 Inside the Policy Machine01:14 How American Foreign Policy Gets Made05:02 The Formal Process vs. How Washington Really Works08:29 Why Academia Lost Influence on Foreign Policy19:12 What Think Tanks Actually Do24:59 Who Influences Whom?28:53 Think Tanks, Political Parties, and the Revolving Door33:21 How Presidential Power Changes the Policy Process36:31 How Foreign Governments Navigate Washington40:07 Why Congress Has Lost Influence on Foreign Policy45:16 Why Congress Avoids Voting on War47:38 How Media Shapes Foreign Policy52:59 How to Build Influence for the Next PresidencyReferenced in this episode: Jeremy Shapiro — Who Influences Whom? Reflections on U.S. Government Outreach to Think Tankshttps://www.brookings.edu/articles/who-influences-whom-reflections-on-u-s-government-outreach-to-think-tanks/Benjamin H. Friedman & Justin Logan — Why Washington Doesn’t Debate Grand Strategyhttps://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/resources/docs/AFRI_Friedman.pdfWho do you think has the most influence over American foreign policy today — the president, Congress, think tanks, or the media? Let us know in the comments.Subscribe to Buffer State for more conversations on foreign policy, national security, and American power.

Nuclear deterrence depends on convincing adversaries that escalation could become dangerously costly. But as the United States extends that protection across Europe and East Asia, can its allies continue relying on the American nuclear umbrella—or should countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea develop nuclear forces of their own?In this episode of Buffer State, Sasha Stern and Reed Smith sit down with Jasen Castillo, Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Albritton Center for Grand Strategy at Texas A&M University, to discuss nuclear deterrence, coercion, military effectiveness, the nuclear triad, and the risks created by America’s global security commitments.Castillo explains why deterrence depends on capability, credibility, and communication; the difference between punishment and denial; and what the wars in Ukraine and Iran reveal about coercion, sanctions, deep strikes, and military power.The conversation also examines why vulnerable regimes pursue nuclear weapons, why the United States maintains nuclear forces across land, air, and sea, and why protecting allies requires a larger and more complex arsenal than defending the United States alone.Castillo ultimately raises a controversial possibility: if America’s allies cannot rely indefinitely on U.S. protection, more of them may need nuclear weapons of their own.What do you think: would more nuclear-armed allies make the world safer—or more dangerous?Topics Include:00:00 Introduction01:40 How deterrence works09:12 Ukraine and the realities of modern war18:28 Deep strikes, propaganda, and attrition24:09 Iran, North Korea, and nuclear survival35:44 Why America maintains the nuclear triad44:36 The cost of defending America’s allies52:29 The case for more nuclear allies58:20 Predictions and the future of deterrence

China’s advantage in critical minerals may not come down to geology, subsidies, or control of processing alone. Chinese mining companies may also be moving faster and operating more efficiently than their Western competitors.

In this episode of Buffer State, Sasha Stern and Justin Logan sit down with David Cole, an economic geologist, mining executive, and capital allocator with more than two decades of experience across global mineral markets. Cole helped build EMX Royalty from a single-asset explorer into a globally diversified royalty business with interests in more than 250 mineral assets across six continents.

Drawing on firsthand experience evaluating mines and mineral projects around the world, Cole explains why China has built such a powerful position in global mining—and why Western countries may be holding themselves back through uncertain permitting, limited capital availability, and short-term thinking.

The conversation examines whether the strategic importance of rare earth elements has been overstated, why copper may be the most important metal in the global economy, and whether the United States actually needs industrial policy to compete with China.

Topics include:

• Why Chinese mining companies are moving faster than Western competitors.
• Whether China’s advantage comes from innovation, subsidies, or - execution.
• Why copper may be more strategically important than rare earths.
• How permitting uncertainty prevents investment in American mining.
• Whether the United States needs a critical minerals industrial policy.
• The reality behind Greenland’s mineral wealth.
• Why supply constraints do not necessarily mean resources are running out.
• How commodity prices eventually create new supply.

Is China winning because of better long-term strategy—or because the West has made mining unnecessarily difficult?

Let us know what you think in the comments.

The era of unquestioned American primacy may be ending. So what should U.S. foreign policy look like in a world where power is increasingly shared among rival states, regional powers, and allies?In this episode of Buffer State, Sasha Stern and Reid Smith sit down with Emma Ashford, Senior Fellow at the Stimson Center and author of First Among Equals: U.S. Foreign Policy for a Multipolar World.Ashford argues that the United States should not retreat from the world, but it must rethink the scale and sustainability of its commitments. The conversation explores whether America can remain a global hegemon, how military technology may reshape the balance of power, whichoverseas bases still serve U.S. interests, and why China presents a different challenge from Russia, Europe, or the Middle East.Topics include:● Is the unipolar era over?● Can America sustain its global military commitments?● Should the U.S. reduce its overseas bases?● What role should Europe play in its own defense?● Is China the central long-term threat to American power?● What lessons should the U.S. draw from Ukraine?● Can Washington adapt to a multipolar world?Do you think America should keep striving for global dominance, or accept a role as first among equals? Is maintaining primacy still possible, and worth the cost? Let us know in the comments.

Energy is not just a commodity. It is the physical foundation beneath prosperity, industry, military power, and the computational economy.

In this episode of Buffer State, Sasha Stern and Reed Smith sit down with Ron Gusek, CEO and President of Liberty Energy, to discuss energy security, oil and gas, China, global supply chains, and the future of American power.

Gusek argues that energy policy cannot be understood in isolation. The conversation covers the recent disruption in global oil and LNG supply, China’s petroleum reserves, America’s shale advantage, the strategic role of maritime chokepoints, the limits of U.S. refining capacity, critical minerals, pipelines, and the case for a stronger North American energy and industrial base.

Topics include:

• Why energy is central to prosperity and national power

• How China thinks about oil reserves and energy security

• What the shale revolution changed for the United States

• Where America may be vulnerable in energy supply chains

• Why critical minerals matter for defense and industry

• The strategic importance of chokepoints like Hormuz, Suez, Malacca, and Panama

• What Canada, Mexico, and the United States could build together

Can America remain powerful without abundant, reliable energy? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Subscribe to Buffer State for conversations on geopolitics, technology, national security, and the changing shape of global power.

America is the most secure great power in modern history. But does that security make it more careful — or more willing to fight?

In this episode of Buffer State, Sasha Stern and Reed Smith sit down with Justin Logan, Director of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, to discuss Iran, American restraint, military power, diplomacy, drones, missile defense, and the future of U.S. grand strategy.

Logan argues that the United States enjoys an extraordinary level of security — but often struggles to connect military action to clear political outcomes. The conversation covers the recent conflict with Iran, whether America’s way of war has become too expensive, how drones and cheaper weapons are changing the battlefield, the future of missile defense, U.S. bases in the Gulf, China, Taiwan, NATO, and when military force is actually justified.

Topics include:

Did Iran reveal the limits of American power?
Is the American way of war too expensive?
Can missile defense keep up with drones and cheap weapons?
Should the U.S. keep major bases in the Gulf?
What does restraint mean in American foreign policy?
How is technology changing diplomacy and war?
Would America really fight China over Taiwan?
When should military force be used?

What do you think: did Iran expose a real weakness in America’s way of war, or is U.S. power still unmatched?

Let us know in the comments. Subscribe to Buffer State for conversations on geopolitics, technology, national security, and the changing shape of global power.

America is the most powerful country in the world. But what should that power actually be used
for?

In this episode of Buffer State, Sasha Stern and Reed Smith sit down with Ed King, founder and president of Defense Priorities, to discuss American restraint, NATO, foreign policy, and the future of U.S. national security.

King argues that the United States enjoys abundant security - and that America’s highest priorities lie at home, not overseas. The conversation covers NATO’s role after the Cold War, whether Europe should carry more of its own defense burden, the risks of military intervention, Ukraine, Venezuela, Taiwan, China, and when war is actually justified.

Topics include:
● Is NATO a security asset or liability for the United States?
● What does restraint mean in American foreign policy?
● Should Europe defend itself?
● Would America really fight China over Taiwan?
● When should military force be used?
● How should the U.S. define its core national security interests?

What do you think: is NATO still a security asset for America, or has it become a liability? Let us know in the comments.

Subscribe to Buffer State for conversations on geopolitics, technology, national security, and the changing shape of global power.