In Thursday night’s debate, the Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion “This house believes there is no moral difference between American and Russian foreign policy”, with 155 members voting for the motion and 125 members voting against it.
The same debate took place in the Union 41 years ago to the day, as was noted by several speakers over the course of the evening. On 27th February 1984, the chamber discussed whether there was any moral difference between the foreign policy of the US and that of the USSR. Then, the noes had it, with 271 members voting against the motion and 232 members voting for it.
The debate commenced with the Union Librarian, Moosa Haraj, opening for the proposition. His argument focused on how, despite the purported values of freedom of the US and the frequent depiction of Russia as the “villain”, both countries only pursue “power not principle”. He cited the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 – a contentious comparison which was questioned later in the debate – arguing that in both instances, actions were claimed to be for liberation, when in fact they were for nothing other than self-interest. He argued that, fundamentally, the sole difference between these “two self-interested titans” was that the US “just has better branding” to disguise the imperialism that lies at the heart of its foreign policy.
Following this, the Treasurer, Sarah Mughal Rana, took the floor as the first speaker for the opposition. She opened her speech for the opposition by conveying her personal connection to the motion, explaining how she grew up in the thick of the war on terror. She insisted on the importance of examining the moral frameworks that underpin these two powers, arguing that whilst the US couches its foreign policy decisions in claims of neoliberalist and secular values, Russian policy is modelled on the preservation of its own sovereignty and resisting Western opposition. She noted a certain difference in priorities and strategy, as Russia is known to pursue external annexation, whereas the US is not, as well as the existence of “specific accountability frameworks” in the US, such as in the Senate, as opposed to a distinct lack thereof in Russia.
Next to take the floor for the proposition was Israr Khan, President of the Union, whose argument, similarly to the Librarian’s, primarily entailed an examination of the way in which the US obscures its intentions with regards to foreign policy decisions. He argued that one of the few advantages of the Trump administration is that the President is upfront about acting uniquely out of self-interest on the international stage, contrary to previous US leaders.
President Israr Khan then drew his listeners’ attention to the 251 American military interventions that took place between 1991 and 2022, as compared to Russia’s 25, as well as the 1 million people that died in US wars post-9/11. In light of these figures, he underlined the phenomenon of American exceptionalism and claimed: “Washington weaponises the dollar”. He drew his speech to a close by asserting that the solitary moral difference to be observed between Russia and the US is one of “style” rather than of “substance”.
Following him was Erik Ramanathan, an American attorney who served as US ambassador to Sweden under President Joe Biden from 2022 to 2025, who began by describing the motion as “dangerous”. His argument centred around the US’s interest in other nations as allies rather than mere vassals, as they are understood by Russia, as well as the power held by the American people to “sound the alarm” when foreign policy decisions are taken that they don’t approve of, giving the example of the Vietnam War.
He did, however, stress the power of the right to protest and the freedom of press that bridles such a movement, stating: “Resistance is growing stronger by the day.” To this he opposed the lack of such opportunity for change in Russia, somewhat wryly concluding his speech by assuring the chamber that, unlike in Russia, no one would be arrested for which door they walked through.
The third speaker for the proposition was Vladimir Pozner Jr, a Russian-American journalist who acted as a spokesperson for the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He also stressed the point of exceptionalism as a common trait for both powers, and used the expression “intellectual junk food” coined by President Nixon, to explain how both countries present their foreign policy in a way suited to the sensibilities of their respective publics.
He spoke of how, in 60 years as a journalist, having spoken to many highly ranking people, both publicly and privately, on both sides, not once has he heard any of them say a word about moral foreign policy. To conclude his speech he thanked the members for their attention and wittily cited Shakespeare: “A plague on both your houses!”, earning a bout of laughter from the chamber.
Speaking next was Russian investigative journalist and Russian security services expert, Andrei Soldatov. He stressed a fundamental difference in the motivations of Russia and the US relative to foreign policy, attributing fear to the former and ambition to the latter. He argued that decisions made by Russian leaders betray a deep-seated fear of regime change, something that can be attested by the fact that he himself has been placed on the wanted list by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for his work in investigative journalism.
Following Andrei was Liza Barkova, a first year PPE student at Christ Church College and a Russian citizen with, as Sara’s speech earlier teased, an alleged Russian oligarch for a father. Like the preceding speakers for the proposition, she argued that the ultimate and only goal of both powers was a protection of self-interest. She highlighted the impact of Russian foreign policy on its own people, discussing the conscription of boys her age to the war in Ukraine as well as a personal anecdote in which her best friend found herself having to hide in Kiev after the outbreak of war.
She made a case not for the equal “immorality” of the two countries but for their identical “amorality”, claiming that their shared goal of power is pragmatic, and that pragmatism is essentially amoral. She concluded that “there is no moral difference because there is no morality in it [both Russian and American foreign policy].”
The final speaker of the evening was a member from the audience, who took the place of President Guillermo Lasso, who had to leave the debate due to an “emergency”. The member underlined examples of the US intervening with the intention of saving smaller nations from atrocities such as genocides, and, by comparison, the manifest lack of such an action in the history of Russian foreign policy. He also argued that the invasion of Iraq is not comparable to the invasion of Ukraine and to do so is morally abhorrent and “a mockery of this union”.
Also expected to speak was Nina Khrushcheva, the granddaughter of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and a Professor of International Affairs at The New School, but she withdrew prior to the debate.
