Episode 1875: Dave Smith

Introduction

Episode 1875 of the Joe Rogan Experience, featuring comedian and libertarian commentator Dave Smith, aired on September 28, 2022, during a critical period of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. While political commentary and debate are valuable, this episode crossed into problematic territory by promoting debunked conspiracy theories about the Ukraine-Russia conflict and repeating misleading narratives that echo Kremlin propaganda talking points.

Smith, a comedian and host of the podcast “Part of the Problem,” presented himself as knowledgeable about complex geopolitical issues while making claims that have been thoroughly fact-checked and found to be either misleading or outright false. The episode is particularly concerning because it presents Russian disinformation narratives as credible alternative perspectives during an active war involving potential war crimes.

Problematic Claims and Fact-Checks

Claim 1: Boris Johnson Prevented Ukraine Peace Deal

What Was Said: Dave Smith claimed that “America through Boris Johnson told Ukraine not to negotiate with Russia at the very beginning of the war, when they had a deal worked out” involving Putin pulling back troops if Ukraine guaranteed autonomy for the Donbass region and agreed to never join NATO.

The Facts: This claim has been extensively fact-checked and identified as Russian disinformation by multiple credible sources:

• EU vs Disinfo (the European Union’s official disinformation tracking service) has categorized this as a “recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative” designed to falsely claim that Ukraine and its allies are not interested in peace (Source)

• Boris Johnson himself has strongly rejected these claims, calling them “total nonsense” and “Russian propaganda,” clarifying that he only “expressed concerns” during conversations with Ukrainian President Zelensky (Source)

• Ukrainian officials have confirmed that Western partners were informed about negotiations and could give advice, but “did not make decisions on behalf of Ukraine.” David Arakhamia, Ukraine’s chief negotiator, revealed that Ukraine was not going to sign the document even before receiving Johnson’s advice (Source)

• H-Diplo analysis found that “various factors rendered the conclusion of a peace treaty unfeasible in April 2022, including the Ukrainian government’s own significant skepticism about Russia’s reliability” (Source)

Why This Matters: This narrative shifts blame for the war’s continuation from Russia (the aggressor) to Western leaders, undermining support for Ukraine’s defense and echoing Kremlin propaganda designed to fracture Western unity.

Claim 2: NATO Promised Not to Expand “One Inch” Eastward

What Was Said: Smith claimed that when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, NATO promised “verbally and in writing” that “NATO would not expand one inch to the east.”

The Facts: This is a significant oversimplification of a complex historical debate that omits crucial context:

• The context was East Germany specifically, not broader Eastern Europe. In 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker discussed whether a unified Germany would be tied to NATO “with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position” - this referred to East German territory, not all of Eastern Europe (Source)

• Nothing was formalized: The 1990 treaty known as the 2+4 Treaty, which formally paved the way for German reunification, made no mention of NATO enlargement beyond Germany (Source)

• Gorbachev himself gave contradictory accounts: In later interviews, Gorbachev stated: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was never discussed; it was not raised in those years. I am saying this with a full sense of responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country brought up the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist in 1991” (Source)

• Historical context: The Warsaw Pact still existed in 1990. The idea of NATO expansion beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda, as the Soviet sphere of influence remained intact (Source)

• Harvard Law School analysis: Professor Mark Kramer, who has extensively studied this issue, concluded that the idea of a no-NATO-enlargement promise is a “myth” - while verbal assurances were made about East German territory specifically, no formal binding promise was made about broader NATO expansion (Source)

Why This Matters: Presenting this oversimplified narrative as established fact provides justification for Russian aggression and ignores the sovereignty of Eastern European nations that voluntarily sought NATO membership for protection from Russian imperialism.

Claim 3: Russia’s Invasion Was “Provoked”

What Was Said: Smith argued that to say Russia was unprovoked is “insane” and “only people who know nothing about the history of this conflict would say there was no provocation.”

The Facts: While scholars debate NATO expansion’s role as a contributing factor to tensions, the framing of Russia’s invasion as “provoked” is highly contested:

• Alternative explanations from scholars: Russia experts Robert Person and Michael McFaul argue that tensions between Russia and the West have correlated more with “waves of democratic expansion in Eurasia” rather than NATO expansion itself - suggesting Putin’s real concern is democratic governance threatening his authoritarian model (Source)

• Sovereignty matters: The “provocation” narrative ignores the agency and sovereignty of Eastern European nations. These countries sought NATO membership voluntarily due to historical experiences with Russian/Soviet occupation and ongoing security concerns about Russian imperialism

• Atlantic Council analysis: Experts argue the invasion stems from Putin’s imperial ambitions and desire to prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful democracy on Russia’s border, not NATO expansion (Source)

• The false equivalence problem: Even scholars who argue NATO expansion contributed to tensions emphasize that this does not justify Russia’s illegal invasion, war crimes, or violations of international law

Why This Matters: The “provoked” framing removes moral and legal responsibility from Russia for choosing military aggression, shifting blame to NATO and Ukraine for defensive actions and sovereign choices.

COVID-19 and Vaccine Misinformation

The episode also included problematic COVID-19 content:

What Was Discussed: According to the transcript, Smith and Rogan questioned vaccine efficacy, criticized lockdown measures, and suggested pharmaceutical companies prioritized profits over health.

Context: Dave Smith has publicly stated he is opposed to vaccine mandates and told Reason magazine in 2021 that he did not plan to vaccinate himself or his child against COVID-19. Joe Rogan has a documented history of COVID misinformation that led to an open letter from 270 scientists, physicians, and healthcare workers expressing concern over “false and societally harmful assertions” on his podcast (Source)

Why This Matters: COVID vaccine hesitancy promoted by influential media figures has contributed to preventable deaths and prolonged the pandemic’s impact on public health.

The Broader Problem

This episode exemplifies a troubling pattern on the Joe Rogan Experience: presenting fringe perspectives and debunked conspiracy theories as credible “alternative viewpoints” without proper fact-checking or expert rebuttal. While Dave Smith is entitled to his political opinions as a libertarian commentator, his credentials as a comedian do not make him an authority on complex geopolitical issues, NATO history, or public health policy.

The Russia-Ukraine discussion is particularly concerning because:

1. It occurred during an active war involving documented war crimes
2. It amplified narratives that closely align with Russian state propaganda
3. It presented debunked claims without proper context or fact-checking
4. It reached millions of listeners who may accept these claims as credible

Conclusion

Episode 1875 demonstrates the harm that can occur when a massive platform uncritically amplifies misinformation about critical global issues. Whether discussing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or COVID-19 vaccines, the responsibility that comes with reaching millions of listeners demands better standards for accuracy and fact-checking.

The promotion of debunked claims about Boris Johnson “preventing peace,” the misleading framing of NATO expansion promises, and the presentation of Russia’s invasion as “provoked” all contribute to a propaganda ecosystem that benefits authoritarian regimes and undermines democratic institutions.

Rogan and his guests have every right to discuss controversial topics and challenge mainstream narratives. However, that discussion should be grounded in factual accuracy, proper historical context, and recognition of the difference between legitimate scholarly debate and demonstrable disinformation.