Counterpoint

Foreign Policy magazine partnered with the Doha Forum to create something most geopolitics podcasts will not attempt: structured debates where smart people genuinely disagree with each other. Host Sasha Polakow-Suransky, the deputy editor at FP, brings on two experts with opposing views on a single question and lets them go at it for 30 to 45 minutes. The guest list alone makes this worth subscribing to. Hillary Clinton showed up to debate Russia policy. Gina Miller, the anti-Brexit campaigner, went head-to-head with former UK Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. EU diplomat Kaja Kallas and Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross have both appeared. These are not cable news shouting matches -- the conversations stay substantive and the disagreements are rooted in genuine analytical differences rather than partisan performance. Recent episodes have tackled whether Ukraine can defend itself without American support, the case for and against South Korean nuclear weapons, how to handle the Syrian political transition, and whether Western aid to Africa actually works. Each episode frames a clear question and forces both sides to make their strongest case. With 47 episodes and a 4.5-star rating from 38 reviews, the show is still relatively new but already filling a real niche. The debate format means you sometimes get an episode where one guest is clearly more prepared or persuasive than the other, and that imbalance can be frustrating. But more often, you walk away having heard two legitimate perspectives that complicate whatever position you held going in. In a media environment where most shows confirm what you already believe, Counterpoint actively tries to challenge it. That is rarer and more valuable than it sounds.