Podcasts about Harriman Institute

About the Lecture: Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, analysts and observers around the world were shocked and surprised that Ukraine did not fall in a matter of days or weeks. Instead people across the country resisted with both military and civilian means, halting the Russian advance. Surveys indicate that over 80% of the Ukrainian population contributed to the war effort in some way (e.g. Onuch et al 2022, 2023), suggesting that Ukrainian civilians have made a crucial, if hard-to-quantify, contribution to Ukraine's continued resistance. However, scholarship on civilian wartime engagement more broadly tends to focus on decisions to join the military or to flee following the onset of conflict – meaning that our understanding of how and why civilians mobilise in non-combatant roles is limited. Drawing on recent fieldwork conducted in Ukraine, this talk discusses the diverse roles Ukrainian civilians are playing in the war effort and what motivates this engagement, particularly in parts of Ukraine most acutely impacted by the war. The discussion will also contextualize this engagement in Ukraine's longer history of civilian mobilization, based upon Emma's doctoral research into mass mobilization in Ukraine prior to 2022. About the Speaker: Emma Mateo is a postdoctoral fellow at New York University's Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia. She studies political behaviour in times of crisis, such as mass protest and war, with a regional focus on eastern Europe, particularly Ukraine and Belarus. Her current monograph project explores civilian responses to conflict, focusing on the case of Ukrainian mobilisation during the Russo-Ukrainian war. Drawing upon fieldwork in Ukraine and systematic analysis of local and social media data, the project investigates the actions and motivations of ordinary Ukrainians in different local contexts who engaged in the war effort as civilians. Emma also researches subnational mobilisation during mass protest, mapping and analysing local protests Belarus and Ukraine for her doctoral research. Emma's interest in the intersection of protest, civil society, media and technology has led her to make innovative use of social media data, such as Telegram Messenger. Her work has been published in Post-Soviet Affairs and Social Media + Society, and featured at major conferences and expert workshops in the US, Canada, UK, and EU. She has previously worked at Columbia University as a Postdoctoral Fellow at The Harriman Institute, and Adjunct Lecturer in Sociology. Emma holds a PhD in Sociology (2022) and MPhil in Russian and East European Studies (2018) from the University of Oxford, and a BA in Modern Languages (Russian, French and Ukrainian) from the University of Cambridge.

Felice Gaer, esteemed Director of AJC's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, was an internationally respected human rights advocate who dedicated more than four decades to championing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enforcing international commitments to prevent severe human rights violations globally. On November 9, Felice passed away after a prolonged battle with metastatic breast cancer. In honor of her legacy, we revisit her insightful conversation on People of the Pod, recorded last year during Women's History Month and on International Women's Day. As we remember and celebrate Felice's profound contributions, we share this interview once more. May her memory continue to be a blessing. __ Music credits: Drops of Melting Snow (after Holst, Abroad as I was walking) by Axletree is licensed under a Attribution 4.0 International License. Learn more about Felice Gaer: Felice Gaer, Legendary Human Rights Champion Who Inspired Generations of Global Advocates, Dies at 78 Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Felice Gaer: Manya Brachear Pashman:   This past weekend, AJC lost a phenomenal colleague. Felice Gaer, the director of American Jewish Committee's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, was an internationally renowned human rights expert who, for more than four decades, brought life and practical significance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international commitments, to prevent grave human rights abuses around the world.  She died on November 9, following a lengthy battle with metastatic breast cancer. I had the honor of interviewing Felice last year during Women's History Month and on International Women's Day.  We bring you that interview now, as we remember Felice. May her memory be for a blessing.  _ Felice is with us now to discuss today's human rights challenges and the challenges she has faced as a woman in the Human Rights world.  Felice, welcome to People of the Pod.  Felice Gaer:   Thank you, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's start with the beginning. Can you share with our listeners a little about your upbringing, and how Jewish values shaped what you do today? Felice Gaer:   Well, I had a fairly ordinary upbringing in a suburb of New York City that had a fairly high percentage of Jews living in it–Teaneck, New Jersey. I was shaped by all the usual things in a Jewish home. First of all, the holidays. Secondly, the values, Jewish values, and awareness, a profound awareness of Jewish history, the history of annihilation, expulsion, discrimination, violence. But also the Jewish values of universality, respect for all human life, equality before the law, sense of realism, sense that you can change your life by what you do, and the choices that you make. These are all core Jewish values. And I guess I always have found the three part expression by Rabbi Hillel to sum up the approach I've always taken to human rights and most other things in life. He said, If I'm not for myself, who will be, and if I'm only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? So that's a sense of Jewish particularism, Jewish universalism, and realism, as well. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You went to Wellesley, class of 1968, it's an all-women's college. Was there a strong Jewish presence on campus there at a time? And did that part of your identity even play a role in your college experience?  Felice Gaer :  Well, I left, as I said, a town that had a fairly sizable Jewish population. And I went to Wellesley and I felt like I was in another world. And so even as long ago as 1964-65, that era, I actually reached out to Hillel and participated in very minor activities that took place, usually a Friday night dinner, or something like that. But it really didn't play a role except by making me recognize that I was a member of a very small minority. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Here on this podcast, we've talked a lot about the movement to free Soviet Jewry. As you pursued graduate work at Columbia, and also during your undergrad days at Wellesley, were you involved in that movement at all? Felice Gaer:   Well, I had great interest in Russian studies, and in my years at Wellesley, the Soviet Union movement was at a very nascent stage. And I remember arguments with the Soviet Ambassador coming to the campus and our specialist on Russian history, arguing about whether this concern about the treatment of Soviet Jews was a valid concern.  The professor, who happened to have been Jewish, by the way, argued that Jews in the Soviet Union were treated badly, but so was everybody else in the Soviet Union. And it really wasn't something that one needed to focus on especially. As I left Wellesley and went to Columbia, where I studied political science and was at the Russian Institute, now the Harriman Institute, I found that the treatment of Soviet Jews was different in many ways, and the capacity to do something about it was serious.  We knew people who had relatives, we knew people who wanted to leave. The whole Soviet Union movement was focused around the desire to leave the country–not to change it–that was an explicit decision of Jewish leaders around the world, and in the Soviet Union itself. And so the desire to leave was something you could realize, document the cases, bring the names forward, and engage American officials in a way that the Jewish community had never done before with cases and examples demanding that every place you went, every negotiation that took place, was accompanied by lists of names and cases, whose plight will be brought to the attention of the authorities. And that really mobilized people, including people like me.  I also worked to focus on the agenda of internal change in the Soviet Union. And that meant also looking at other human rights issues. Why and how freedom of religion or belief was suppressed in this militantly atheist state, why and how freedom of expression, freedom of association, and just about every other right, was really severely limited. And what the international standards were at that time. After I left Columbia, that was around the time that the famous manifesto from Andrei Sakharov, the world famous physicist, Nobel Prize winner, was made public. It was around the time that other kinds of dissident materials were becoming better known about life inside the Soviet Union post-Khrushchev. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you left Colombia with a master's degree, the Cold War ends, and you take a job at the Ford Foundation that has you traveling all around Eastern Europe, looking to end human rights abuses, assessing the challenges that face that region. I want to ask you about the treatment of women, and what you witnessed about the mistreatment of women in these regions. And does that tend to be a common denominator around the world when you assess human rights abuses? Felice Gaer:   Well, there's no question that the treatment of women is different than the treatment of men. And it's true all over the world. But when I traveled in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the height of those years, height of the Cold War, and so forth, the issues of women's rights actually weren't one of the top issues on the agenda because the Soviet Union and East European countries appeared to be doing more for women than the Western countries.  They had them in governance. They had them in the parliament. They purported to support equality for women. It took some years for Soviet feminists, dissidents, to find a voice and to begin to point out all the ways in which they were treated in the same condescending, patriarchal style as elsewhere. But in those years, that was not a big issue in the air.  It was unusual for me, a 20-something year old woman from the United States to be traveling around Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, meeting with high officials and others, and on behalf of the Ford Foundation, trying to develop programming that would involve people to people contacts, that would involve developing programs where there was common expertise, like management training, and things of that sort. And I was really an odd, odd duck in that situation, and I felt it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I mentioned in my introduction, the Beijing World Conference on Women, can you reflect a little on what had a lasting impact there? Felice Gaer:   Well, the Beijing World Conference on Women was the largest, and remains the largest conference that the United Nations has ever organized. There were over 35,000 women there, about 17,000 at the intergovernmental conference. I was on the US delegation there.  The simple statement that women's rights are human rights may seem hackneyed today. But when that was affirmed in the 1995 Beijing Outcome Document, it was a major political and conceptual breakthrough. It was largely focused on getting the UN to accept that the rights of women were actually international human rights and that they weren't something different. They weren't private, or outside the reach of investigators and human rights bodies. It was an inclusive statement, and it was a mind altering statement in the women's rights movement.  It not only reaffirmed that women's rights are human rights, but it went further in addressing the problems facing women in the language of human rights.  The earlier world conferences on women talked about equality, but they didn't identify violations of those rights. They didn't demand accountability of those rights. And they said absolutely nothing about creating mechanisms by which you could monitor, review, and hold people accountable, which is the rights paradigm. Beijing changed all that. It was a violations approach that was quite different from anything that existed before that. Manya Brachear Pashman :  Did anything get forgotten? We talked about what had a lasting impact, but what seems to have been forgotten or have fallen to the wayside? Felice Gaer:   Oh, I think it's just the opposite. I think the things that were in the Beijing conference have become Fuller and addressed in greater detail and are more commonly part of what goes on in the international discourse on women's rights and the status of women in public life. And certainly at the international level that's the case.  I'll give you just one example, the Convention Against Torture. I mean, when I became a member of the committee, the 10 person committee, I was the only woman. The committee really had, in 11 years, it had maybe said, four or five things about the treatment of women. And the way that torture, ill treatment, inhuman, degrading treatment may affect women.  It looked at the world through the eyes of male prisoners in detention. And it didn't look at the world through the eyes of women who suffer private violence, gender based violence, that is that the state looks away from and ignores and therefore sanctions, and to a certain extent endorses.  And it didn't identify the kinds of things that affect women, including women who are imprisoned, and why and where in many parts of the world. What one does in terms of education or dress or behavior may lead you into a situation where you're being abused, either in a prison or outside of prison. These are issues that are now part of the regular review, for example, at the Committee Against Torture, issues of of trafficking, issues of gender based violence, the Sharia law, the hudud punishments of whipping and stoning, are part of the concern of the committee, which they weren't before. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, having that woman's perspective, having your perspective on that committee was really important and really changed and broadened the discussion. Felice Gaer:   Absolutely. When I first joined the committee, the first session I was at, we had a review of China. And so I very politely asked a question about the violence and coercion associated with the population policy in China, as you know, forced abortions and things of that sort. This was a question that had come up before the women's convention, the CEDAW, and I thought it was only appropriate that it also come up in the Committee Against Torture.  In our discussion afterwards, the very stern chairman of the committee, a former constable, said to me, ‘You know, this might be of interest to you, Ms. Gaer, but this has nothing to do with the mandate of this committee.' I explained to him why it did, in some detail. And when I finished pointing out all of those elements–including the fact that the people carried out these practices on the basis of state policy–when I finished, there was a silence.  And the most senior person in the room, who had been involved in these issues for decades, said, ‘I'm quite certain we can accommodate Ms. Gaer's concerns in the conclusions,' and they did.  That's the kind of thing that happens when you look at issues from a different perspective and raise them. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You talked about being an odd duck in your 20s, as a woman traveling around Eastern Europe, trying to address these challenges. I'm curious if that woman in her 20s would have been able to stand up to this committee like that, and give that thorough an explanation? Or did it take some years of experience, of witnessing these issues, perhaps being ignored?  Felice Gaer:  Well, I think as we go through life, you learn new things. And I learned new things along the way. I learned about the universal norms, I learned about how to apply them, how they had been applied, and how they hadn't been applied. And in that process, developed what I would say is a sharper way of looking at these issues.  But the Bosnian conflict in particular, made the issue of gender based violence against women, especially in war, but not only in war, into a mainstream issue, and helped propel these issues, both inside the United Nations and outside, the awareness changed.  I remember asking the International Red Cross representatives in Croatia, just across the border from Bosnia, if they had encountered any victims of gender based violence or rape, and they said, ‘No.' And I said, ‘Did you ask them about these concerns?' And they sort of looked down and looked embarrassed, looked at each other and looked back at me and said, ‘Oh.' There were no words. There were no understandings of looking at the world this way. And that has changed. That has changed dramatically today. I mean, if you look at the situation in Ukraine, the amount of gender based violence that has been documented is horrifying, just horrifying, but it's been documented. Manya Brachear Pashman   So is the world of human rights advocacy male-dominated, female-dominated, is it fairly balanced these days? And has that balance made the difference in what you're talking about? Felice Gaer:   You know, I wrote an article in 1988, the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, about why women's rights weren't being addressed. And one of the points I drew attention to was the fact that the heads of almost all the major organizations at the time were all male. And that it wasn't seen as a concern. A lot of that has changed. There's really a real variety of perspectives now that are brought to bear. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So we've talked a lot about the importance of [a] woman's perspective. Does a Jewish perspective matter as well? Felice Gaer:   Oh, on every issue on every issue and, you know, I worked a great deal on freedom of religion and belief, as an issue. That's a core issue of AJC, and it's a fundamental rights issue. And it struck me as surprising that with all the attention to freedom of religion, the concern about antisemitic acts was not being documented by mainstream human rights organizations. And it wasn't being documented by the UN experts on freedom of religion or belief either. I drew this to the attention of Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, who was recently ending his term as Special Rapporteur on Freedom of religion or belief. And he was really very struck by this. And he went, and he did a little bit of research. And he found out that since computerized records had been prepared at the United Nations, that there had been no attention, no attention at all, to cases of alleged antisemitic incidents. And he began a project to record the kinds of problems that existed and to identify what could be done about it. We helped him in the sense that we organized a couple of colloquia, we brought people from all over the world together to talk about the dimensions of the problem and the documentation that they did, and the proposals that they had for addressing it. And he, as you may recall, wrote a brilliant report in 2019, setting out the problems of global antisemitism. And he followed that up in 2022, before leaving his position with what he called an action plan for combating anti semitism, which has concrete specific suggestions for all countries around the world as to what they can do to help combat antisemitism and antisemitic acts, including and to some extent, starting with adopting the working definition on antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, but also activities in in the area of education, training, training of law enforcement officials, documentation and public action. It's a real contribution to the international discourse and to understanding that freedom of religion or belief belongs to everyone. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And do you believe that Dr. Shaheed's report is being absorbed, comprehended by those that need to hear it that need to understand it? Felice Gaer   I've been delighted to see the way that the European Union has engaged with Dr. Shaheed and his report has developed standards and expectations for all 27 member states, and that other countries and other parts of the world have done the same. So yeah, I do think they're engaging with it. I hope there'll be a lot more because the problem has only grown. Manya Brachear Pashman:   On the one year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, JBI issued a report that sounded the alarm on the widespread violations committed against Ukrainians, you mentioned the amount of gender based violence Since that has taken place, and the other just catastrophic consequences of this war. Felice, you've been on the front row of Eastern European affairs and human rights advocacy in that region. From your perspective, and I know this is a big question: How did this war happen? Felice Gaer:   I'll just start by saying: it didn't start in 2022. And if you have to look at what happened, the events of 2014, to understand the events of 2022. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, or even during the breakup, there was a period where the 15th constituent Union republics of the Soviet Union developed a greater national awareness, really, and some of them had been independent as some of them hadn't been, but they developed a much greater awareness. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the 15 countries, including Russia, as one of the 15, became independent entities. And aside from having more members in the United Nations and the Council of Europe and places like that, it led to much more robust activity, in terms of respecting human rights and other areas of endeavor in each of those countries.  The situation in Russia, with a head of state who has been there, with one exception, a couple of years, for 20 years, has seen an angry desire to reestablish an empire. That's the only thing you can say really about it.  If they can't dominate by having a pro-Russian group in charge in the country, then there have been invasions, there have been Russian forces, Russia-aligned forces sent to the different countries. So whether it's Georgia, or Moldova, or Ukraine, we've seen this pattern.  And unfortunately, what happened in 2022, is the most egregious and I would say, blatant such example. In 2014, the Russians argued that it was local Russian speaking, little green men who were conducting hostilities in these places, or it was local people who wanted to realign with Russia, who were demanding changes, and so forth. But in the 2022 events, Russia's forces invaded, wearing Russian insignia and making it quite clear that this was a matter of state policy that they were pursuing, and that they weren't going to give up.  And it's led to the tragic developments that we've all seen inside the country, and the horrific violence, the terrible, widespread human rights violations. And in war, we know that human rights violations are usually the worst.  And so the one good spot on the horizon: the degree to which these abuses have been documented, it's unprecedented to have so much documentation so early in a conflict like this, which someday may lead to redress and accountability for those who perpetrated it. But right now, in the middle of these events, it's just a horror. Manya Brachear Pashman:   What other human rights situations do we need to be taking more seriously now? And where has there been significant progress? Felice Gaer:   Well, I'll talk about the problem spots if I may for a minute. Everyone points to North Korea as the situation without parallel, that's what a UN Commission of Inquiry said, without parallel in the world. The situation in Iran? Well, you just need to watch what's happened to the protesters, the women and others who have protested over 500 people in the streets have died because of this. 15,000 people imprisoned, and Iran's prisons are known for ill treatment and torture.  The situation in Afghanistan is atrocious. The activities of the Taliban, which they were known for in the 1990s are being brought back. They are normalizing discrimination, they are engaged in probably the most hardline gender discrimination we've seen anywhere where women can't work outside the home, girls can't be educated, political participation is denied. The constitution has been thrown out. All kinds of things. The latest is women can't go to parks, they can't go to university, and they can't work for NGOs. This continues. It's a major crisis.  Well, there are other countries, from Belarus, to Sudan to Uzbekistan, and China, that we could also talk about at great length, lots of problems in the world, and not enough effort to expose them, address them and try to ameliorate them. Manya Brachear Pashman   So what do we do about that? What can our listeners do about that, when we hear this kind of grim report? Felice Gaer:   Work harder. Pay attention when you hear about rights issues. Support rights organizations. Take up cases. Seek redress. Be concerned about the victims. All these things need to be done. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I don't know how you maintain your composure and your cool, Felice, because you have faced so much in terms of challenges and push back. So thank you so much for all you have done for women, for the Jewish people, and for the world at large. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Felice Gaer:   Thank you, Manya.

About the Lecture: The legal repression of opposition protests in pre-war Russia is characterized by the deployment of a bifurcated repressive system. This system relies, on the one hand, on “administrative” offenses and, on the other hand, on the criminal justice system to punish protesters. Following the demonstrators from the streets to the police bus, the police precincts and the court, this talk analyzes the case of relatively low-stakes prosecutions for protest-related “administrative” offences and the defensive legal mobilization that they prompted. This use of law and rights claims and sustained organization of legal aid and information support for prosecuted individuals in cases, where a guilty verdict is all but certain, speaks to the broader question of authoritarian legality and constant oscillation of defense actors and defendants themselves between belief and disbelief in law. About the Speaker: Renata Mustafina is a Postdoctoral Research Scholar at the Harriman Institute at Columbia University. Renata is a law and society scholar with research interests in authoritarian legality, legal mobilization, and defense lawyering in repressive settings, as well as in critical approaches to human rights. Her book manuscript, tentatively titled “Against Impossible Odds: Defensive Legal Mobilization in Russian Protest-Related Prosecutions,” ethnographically studies the legal aftermath of opposition protests in pre-war Russia (2012-2017). Renata holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Sciences Po, an M.A. in Sociology from École Normale Supérieure, and an undergraduate degree in International Relations from Moscow State University

If there is one thing on our collective minds these days, it is the issue of politics. But for all the interest it piques, much of it remains a mystery to the American public. Bestselling author and journalist Casey Michel, who tackled the problem of financial corruption in his first book American Kleptocracy, sheds light on an issue that may be unknown to those outside the Capitol. In Michel's new book Foreign Agents: How American Lobbyists and Lawmakers Threaten Democracy Around the World, he details how one group has worked as foot soldiers for authoritarian, repressive regimes. In the process, they've not only established dictatorships and spread kleptocratic networks, but they've successfully guided U.S. policy without the rest of America being aware. And now, Michel asserts, some of them have begun turning their sights on American democracy itself. These Americans are known as foreign lobbyists, and many of them spent years laundering reputations and getting cozy in Washington with dictatorships. Michel writes of foreign lobbyists throughout history–including those who built alliances with Mussolini and the Nazis, but also contemporary Americans: in law firms and consultancies, among PR specialists and former lawmakers, and even within think tanks and universities. Foreign Agents illuminates these figures past and present and determines that they pose a threat to the future of American democracy. Casey Michel is an author, journalist, and director of the Combating Kleptocracy Program with the Human Rights Foundation. He is the author of American Kleptocracy, named by The Economist as one of the “best books to read to understand financial crime.” His writing on offshoring, foreign lobbying, authoritarianism, and illicit wealth has appeared in Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and The Washington Post, among other outlets, and he has appeared on NPR, BBC, CNN, and MSNBC, among other stations. He has also testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the links between illicit financial networks and national security. He received his Master's degree in Russian, Eurasian, and East European Studies from Columbia University's Harriman Institute, and served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in northern Kazakhstan. Foreign Agents is his second book. Dr. Katy E. Pearce is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington and holds affiliations with the University of Washington's Ellison Center for Russian, East European and Central Asian Studies and the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public. She is the chair of the Communication and Technology Division of the International Communication Association and is an associate editor at the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Her research focuses on social and political uses of technologies and digital content in the transitioning democracies and semi-authoritarian states of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, but primarily Armenia and Azerbaijan. Buy the Book Foreign Agents: How American Lobbyists and Lawmakers Threaten Democracy Around the World The Elliott Bay Book Company

Since Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, Ukrainian musicologist and former director of Kyiv Symphony Orchestra Anna Stavychenko has made it her mission to promote Ukrainian classical music to the world. She's currently working on a novel about her experiences since Russia's full-scale invasion, which she started during a Harriman Institute residency for displaced Ukrainian artists at Columbia Global Centers Paris and the Institute for Ideas and Imagination. Listen to her story. Check out the Winter 2024 issue of Harriman Magazine to read an excerpt from Anna's novel in progress and other essays and articles about Ukraine. Click here to view a concert from Stavychenko's 1991 Project, hosted in collaboration with Columbia Global Centers | Reid Hall, which includes Maksym Berezovsky's Sonata for violin and harpsichord featured in the episode (23:19). Performed by Antonina Krysa and Olga Vardanyan. And click here to view the 1991 Project's concert featuring Zoltan Almashi's, Suite No. 1 for Cello Solo, performed by Olga Driga (14:14), and Victoria Poleva's Gulf stream for Two Cellos performed by Driga and Nataliia Ivanovska (45:53). Watch the he National Philharmonic of Ukraine's performance for the Paris Philharmonic in Kyiv.      

EPISODE 1923: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to Casey Michel, author of the upcoming FOREIGN AGENTS, about the dirty overseas money sloshing around both sides of American politicsCasey Michel is an author, journalist, and director of the Combating Kleptocracy Program with the Human Rights Foundation. He is the author of American Kleptocracy, named by The Economist as one of the "best books to read to understand financial crime." His writing on offshoring, foreign lobbying, authoritarianism, and illicit wealth has appeared in Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and The Washington Post, among other outlets, and he has appeared on NPR, BBC, CNN, and MSNBC, among other stations. He has also testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the links between illicit financial networks and national security. He received his Master's degree in Russian, Eurasian, and East European Studies from Columbia University's Harriman Institute, and served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in northern Kazakhstan. Foreign Agents is his second book.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.

Summary In this episode of The Press Lounge, Ukraine War Brief's sister podcast, Yulia and friend of the podcast Mariia Shuvalova, literary critic and lecturer at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and Fulbright Scholar at the Harriman Institute at Columbia University in the city of New York spoke with Serhii Plokhy, Ph.D., Director of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Mykhailo S. Hrushevs'kyi Professor of Ukrainian History, and author of The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine (2015) and The Russo Ukrainian War: The Return of History (2023), who explained why the West must support Ukraine, why an armistice would be a loss, and what history tells us about russian imperialism. The Press Lounge is now available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Goodpods, iHeart Radio, Pandora, and is coming to TuneIn, Amazon Music, and Audible soon! Donate to United24's Safe Skies campaign, and thank you in advance! Network The Press Lounge is available on Apple iTunes, Spotify, Goodpods, iHeart Radio, Pandora, and coming soon to Amazon Music/Audible, and TuneIn! Our sister podcast FAQ-U: Ukraine Explained, co-produced with Svidomi Media, is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Goodpods, iHeart Radio, and is coming soon to Amazon Music/Audible, Pandora, and Audible soon! Hosted by our own Yewleea and produced for Svidomi Media, FAQ-U explores popular misconceptions about Ukraine. Help Our Podcast: Rate, Review, and Give Feedback. Every 5 star rating and review helps others our podcast. If you enjoy listening, we'd appreciate it! Share the show with your friends and family, and feel free to listen again if you didn't quite catch something. This helps more listeners find us. If we haven't quite earned your 5-star review, reach out and let us know at social@borlingon.media so we can continue to grow and improve! Thank you! Support Our Work, Receive Benefits. For just $10/month, paid subscribers on Substack receive an ad-free podcast, along with the Written Brief. Founding Members get to go behind the scenes and see how we produce the podcast. Subscribe here: substack.com/@thepeoplesmedia. You can support our work on Patreon, as well. Starting at just $5/month, you'll get the ad-free podcast. Members at the $10/month level will also receive a copy of the written Brief and a complimentary subscription to our Substack! Check out our shop! Follow Us On Social Media Follow Yewleea and Rob on social media! Credit Executive Editors: Yewleea and Rob Gaudette. Editor: Rob Gaudette. Sound Mixing: Rob Gaudette. Special thanks to Mariia Shuvalova for her help with our journalism. Copyright 2023, Borlingon Media Group, LLC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Summary Yulia and friend of the podcast Mariia Shuvalova, literary critic and lecturer at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and Fulbright Scholar at the Harriman Institute at Columbia University in the city of New York spoke with Serhii Plokhy, Ph.D., Director of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Mykhailo S. Hrushevs'kyi Professor of Ukrainian History, and author of The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine (2015) and The Russo Ukrainian War: The Return of History (2023), who explained why the West must support Ukraine, why an armistice would be a loss, and what history tells us about russian imperialism. The Press Lounge is now available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Goodpods, iHeart Radio, Pandora, and is coming to TuneIn, Amazon Music, and Audible soon! Network Our flagship podcast, Ukraine War Brief, is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Goodpods, iHeart Radio, Pandora, TuneIn, Amazon Music, Audible, and where ever you get your podcasts! We bring you up to speed on the war in Ukraine, with added insights, analysis, and depth found no where else. Our sister podcast FAQ-U: Ukraine Explained, co-produced with Svidomi Media, is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Goodpods, iHeart Radio, and is coming soon to Amazon Music/Audible, Pandora, and Audible soon! Hosted by our own Yewleea and produced for Svidomi Media, FAQ-U explores popular misconceptions about Ukraine. Help Our Podcast: Rate, Review, and Give Feedback. Every 5 star rating and review helps others our podcast. If you enjoy listening, we'd appreciate it! Share the show with your friends and family, and feel free to listen again if you didn't quite catch something. This helps more listeners find us. If we haven't quite earned your 5-star review, reach out and let us know at social@borlingon.media so we can continue to grow and improve! Thank you! Support Our Work, Receive Benefits. For just $10/month, paid subscribers on Substack receive an ad-free podcast, along with the Written Brief. Founding Members get to go behind the scenes and see how we produce the podcast. Subscribe here: substack.com/@thepeoplesmedia. You can support our work on Patreon, as well. Starting at just $5/month, you'll get the Ukraine War Brief podcast ad-free podcast. Members at the $10/month level receive a copy of the written Brief and complimentary subscription to our Substack, along with ad-free podcasts from all our channels! Follow Us on Social Media. Follow Yewleea and Rob on social media.   Copyright 2023, Borlingon Media Group, LLC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Professor Marek Kornat discuss "Oskar Halecki in the independent Poland (1918-1939)." This lecture is part of the 16th annual Kościuszko Chair Conference and the 4th Oskar Halecki Symposium. About the Speaker Marek Kornat is a historian. He graduated with his PhD from the Jagiellonian University (UJ) in Kraków in 2000, and subsequently obtained the title of Professor of Humanities in 2015. His scholarly activity focuses on history of Polish diplomacy and international relations in the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as the issues of the Second Polish Republic (1918-1939). He also deals with the history of Polish political thought, the historiography of totalitarian regimes and the origins and significance of the Sovietology. Since 2011, he has been employed in the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN), as Head of the Chair of 20th Century History. Since 2008, he has also been lecturing at the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University (UKSW) in Warsaw. He has delivered lectures at foreign research centers including Centre National de la Recherche (research) Scientifique in Paris, Harriman Institute at Columbia University in New York and Institut für Wissenschaften vom Menschen in Vienna as well as Europäische Institut in Mainz. He has been granted scholarships by the Foundation for Polish Science, the De Brzezie Lanckoronski Foundation, the Kościuszko Foundation and the British Academy. He is the author of 10 books and over 300 articles concerning the above issues. About the Symposium This virtual joint symposium is organized by The Institute of World Politics, in Washington, D.C., USA, and The Oskar Halecki Institute in Ottawa, ON, Canada to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the passing away of Professor Oskar Halecki. Sponsors The Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C., United States The Oskar Halecki Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada Co-Sponsors Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IH PAN) Institute of Heritage of the Polish National Thought (IDMN) Instytut Historii USKW (Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski University) ***Learn more about IWP graduate programs: https://www.iwp.edu/academic-programs/ ***Make a gift to IWP: https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/WebLink.aspx?name=E231090&id=18

Professor Marek Kornat discuss "Oskar Halecki in the independent Poland (1918-1939)." This lecture is part of the 16th annual Kościuszko Chair Conference and the 4th Oskar Halecki Symposium. About the Speaker Marek Kornat is a historian. He graduated with his PhD from the Jagiellonian University (UJ) in Kraków in 2000, and subsequently obtained the title of Professor of Humanities in 2015. His scholarly activity focuses on history of Polish diplomacy and international relations in the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as the issues of the Second Polish Republic (1918-1939). He also deals with the history of Polish political thought, the historiography of totalitarian regimes and the origins and significance of the Sovietology. Since 2011, he has been employed in the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN), as Head of the Chair of 20th Century History. Since 2008, he has also been lecturing at the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University (UKSW) in Warsaw. He has delivered lectures at foreign research centers including Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris, Harriman Institute at Columbia University in New York and Institut für Wissenschaften vom Menschen in Vienna as well as Europäische Institut in Mainz. He has been granted scholarships by the Foundation for Polish Science, the De Brzezie Lanckoronski Foundation, the Kościuszko Foundation and the British Academy. He is the author of 10 books and over 300 articles concerning the above issues. About the Symposium This virtual joint symposium is organized by The Institute of World Politics, in Washington, D.C., USA, and The Oskar Halecki Institute in Ottawa, ON, Canada to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the passing away of Professor Oskar Halecki. Sponsors The Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C., United States The Oskar Halecki Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada Co-Sponsors Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IH PAN) Institute of Heritage of the Polish National Thought (IDMN) Instytut Historii USKW (Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski University) ***Learn more about IWP graduate programs: https://www.iwp.edu/academic-programs/ ***Make a gift to IWP: https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/WebLink.aspx?name=E231090&id=18

As the five Central Asian states prepare to mark their 32nd anniversary of independence, the region's future is far from clear. Governments promise reform but are changing legislation to benefit those in power, while the space for alternative views seems to be shrinking. What defines the Central Asian countries today, and where are they headed next? Joining host Bruce Pannier to explore these questions are guests Assel Tutumlu, originally from Kazakhstan but currently a lecturer at the Department of International Relations and Political Science at the Near East University in Nicosia, Cyprus; Luca Anceschi, professor of Central Asian studies at Glasgow University and author of several books on Central Asia; and Alexander Cooley, Claire Tow professor of political science and vice provost at Barnard College, former director of Columbia University's Harriman Institute, and also an accomplished author on Central Asia.

August 2023: A Note from Hope Katz Gibbs, founder, Inkandescent® PR + Publishing Co. — Are you a parent tired of the persistent belief that your child's moral values, ethical principles, and ability to distinguish between what is right and wrong must come from religion? Do you wonder how you can ever teach your child to think for herself in a culture that values uncritical obedience over critical consideration? Or do you fear what the future holds for your child in a society that views unquestioned faith as a virtue and a questioning mind with suspicion? If so, you are going to enjoy "The Earthbound Parent," a book by author and father Richard A. Conn, Jr. In it, he argues that the solution is clear, and it rests not only with you but all parents with similar concerns. In this volume, he demonstrates why all parents who value science and reason can help stop the centuries-old practice of religious indoctrination and offers advice on encouraging children to discover the world and their place in it for themselves. "Only by allowing them to learn that we are in this world together, that we have a limited time to live, and that we have only one another on which to rely can we truly enable them to flourish and begin to build a just and peaceful world—not just for their generation but for all future generations," explains Richard. On this episode: Richard's daughters, Nikita, 16 and Natalie, 13 (pictured right) interview him about what it was like to be raised by an "Earthbound Parent." How was their upbringing different from their religious friends? Do they appreciate their dad's perspective? Will they raise their kids the same way? And so much more! Don't miss it. About Richard Conn Jr.: Richard is the Managing Partner of Eurasia Advisors. He also serves as Managing Partner of Innovate Partners, an emerging company private investment fund, as an affiliate partner in Stonehaven, a global capital raising platform, and as an Independent Trustee of a publicly traded mutual fund. Before founding Eurasia Advisors in 2003, Richard practiced international corporate law for nearly twenty years as an equity partner with the international law firm Latham & Watkins. He founded the firm's Moscow office in 1992. He served as a key advisor to the Presidential Administration of Russian President Boris Yeltsin and as President of the Moscow-based Foreign Bar Association. A longstanding past member of the Board of Directors of the U.S.-Russia Business Council and of the International Crisis Group's International Board of Advisors, he regularly consults with the World Bank, Members of Congress, and the Administration regarding C.I.S.-related issues. He Co-Chaired the U.S.-Russia Business Council and American Chamber of Commerce (Moscow) joint initiative to facilitate Russian accession to WTO. Richard delivered the keynote address at the United Nations to open the U.N. conference addressing establishing a worldwide Sovereign Debt Restructuring framework. He frequently publishes on these subjects and recently authored “Towards a Sovereign Debt Restructuring Framework: Less is More,” which appears in Joe Stiglitz's book Too Little, Too Late: The Quest of Resolving Sovereign Debt Crises, Columbia University Press, New York, 2016. He periodically lectures at Columbia University's Harriman Institute of Russian, Eurasian, and East European Studies and the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the Centre for International Governance Innovation, and Columbia University's SIPA Center on Global Economic Governance. Richard ran in 2010 for the Deputy Presidency of the World Chess Federation on an international ticket headed by the Twelfth World Champion Anatoly Karpov with the support of the Thirteenth World Champion Garry Kasparov and is an avid chess player. He сhairs the Advisory Committee of a non-profit organization that has already taught chess to over 4 million public school second and third graders in the U.S. A Dartmouth College and Fordham University Law School graduate, Richard clerked for the Honorable Gordon Thompson, Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. He is the co-author of Collier Labor Law and the Bankruptcy Code, M. Bender (1989). He is also the author of The Earthbound Parent: How (and Why) to Raise Your Little Angels Without Religion, Pitchstone Publishing (2018) , a book that encourages critical thinking and enhanced ethical standards. Richard is fluent in Russian and Spanish. Click here to learn more: eurasiadvisors.com. Don't miss it! 

Paramilitary organizations and private military companies have played significant roles in the execution of some countries' foreign policy; Russia's Wagner Group serves as one of the more notorious examples. Not officially recognized in the eyes of their country's law, this paramilitary force carries out operations unhampered by the direct oversight of government. How has Russian foreign policy contributed to the rise of organizations such as the Wagner Group? What advantages do countries such as Russia see in using them? What purpose do they serve that cannot be accomplished by a national army? What challenges do they raise in the areas that they operate? Is the use of them increasing, or likely to?Joining the conversation are two experts in the field: Kimberly Marten, faculty member of Columbia's Harriman Institute for Russian, Eurasian and East European Studies, and Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, and Jack Margolin, Program Director at Center for Advanced Defense Studies.Follow us at:Network2020.orgTwitter: @Network2020LinkedIn: Network 20/20Facebook: @network2020Instagram: @network_2020"Sunrise Expedition" by Joseph McDadeFollow us at:Network2020.orgTwitter: @Network2020LinkedIn: Network 20/20Facebook: @network2020Instagram: @network_2020

She's one of the world's most effective champions of women's rights, human rights, and democratic values. For Women's History Month, we speak with Felice Gaer, director of American Jewish Committee's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights. Gaer, who fights for religious freedom, the rights of women, and against antisemitism, highlights the importance of women's voices in an often-male dominated field. She has been appointed to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, serving five terms (three as chair and two as vice chair), and was the first American elected to serve on the UN's Committee Against Torture.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. _____ Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Felice Gaer _____ Show Notes:   Read: JBI Appeal on the One-Year Anniversary of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine   Listen: 10 Trailblazing Jewish Women on AJC's People of the Pod Dr. Ahmed Shaheed on first UN human rights report wholly dedicated to antisemitism    Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod   You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org   If you've enjoyed this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, tag us on social media with #PeopleofthePod, and hop onto Apple Podcasts to rate us and write a review, to help more listeners find us. _____   Transcript of Interview with Felice Gaer   Manya Brachear Pashman:   Felice Gaer has served as the director of AJC's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of human rights, affectionately known here as JBI since 1993. During that time, she has specifically focused on the rights of religious freedom, the rights of women, the prohibition of torture and the struggle against antisemitism globally. She has been appointed a public member of at least nine US delegations to United Nations Human Rights negotiations, including the Vienna World Conference on human rights in 1993. And the Beijing World Conference on Women in 1995. She was the first American elected to serve on the UN's Committee Against Torture. In fact, she served five terms, and she was appointed to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, where she served as chair and advised the President and Congress on US human rights policy.    And even though she's not a lawyer or a court justice, on March 30, she receives the Honorary Member award of the American Society of International Law, the preeminent international society in this field, as we mark International Women's Day this week and women's history this month, Felice is with us now to discuss today's human rights challenges and the challenges she has faced as a woman in the Human Rights world.    Felice, welcome to People of the Pod.    Felice Gaer:   Thank you, Manya.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's start with the beginning. Can you share with our listeners a little about your upbringing, and how Jewish values shaped what you do today?   Felice Gaer:   Well, I had a fairly ordinary upbringing in a suburb of New York City that had a fairly high percentage of Jews living in it–Teaneck, New Jersey. I was shaped by all the usual things in a Jewish home. First of all, the holidays. Secondly, the values, Jewish values, and awareness, a profound awareness of Jewish history, the history of annihilation, expulsion, discrimination, violence. But also the Jewish values of universality, respect for all human life, equality before the law, sense of realism, sense that you can change your life by what you do, and the choices that you make. These are all core Jewish values. And I guess I always have found the three part expression by Rabbi Hillel to sum up the approach I've always taken to human rights and most other things in life. He said, If I'm not for myself, who will be, and if I'm only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? So that's a sense of Jewish particularism, Jewish universalism, and realism, as well.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   You went to Wellesley, class of 1968, it's an all-women's college. Was there a strong Jewish presence on campus there at a time? And did that part of your identity even play a role in your college experience?    Felice Gaer :  Well, I left, as I said, a town that had a fairly sizable Jewish population. And I went to Wellesley and I felt like I was in another world. And so even as long ago as 1964-65, that era, I actually reached out to Hillel and participated in very minor activities that took place, usually a Friday night dinner, or something like that. But it really didn't play a role except by making me recognize that I was a member of a very small minority.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   Here on this podcast, we've talked a lot about the movement to free Soviet Jewry. As you pursued graduate work at Columbia, and also during your undergrad days at Wellesley, were you involved in that movement at all?   Felice Gaer:   Well, I had great interest in Russian studies, and in my years at Wellesley, the Soviet Union movement was at a very nascent stage. And I remember arguments with the Soviet Ambassador coming to the campus and our specialist on Russian history, arguing about whether this concern about the treatment of Soviet Jews was a valid concern.  The professor, who happened to have been Jewish, by the way, argued that Jews in the Soviet Union were treated badly, but so was everybody else in the Soviet Union. And it really wasn't something that one needed to focus on especially. As I left Wellesley and went to Columbia, where I studied political science and was at the Russian Institute, now the Harriman Institute, I found that the treatment of Soviet Jews was different in many ways, and the capacity to do something about it was serious.  We knew people who had relatives, we knew people who wanted to leave. The whole Soviet Union movement was focused around the desire to leave the country–not to change it–that was an explicit decision of Jewish leaders around the world, and in the Soviet Union itself. And so the desire to leave was something you could realize, document the cases, bring the names forward, and engage American officials in a way that the Jewish community had never done before with cases and examples demanding that every place you went, every negotiation that took place, was accompanied by lists of names and cases, whose plight will be brought to the attention of the authorities. And that really mobilized people, including people like me.  I also worked to focus on the agenda of internal change in the Soviet Union. And that meant also looking at other human rights issues. Why and how freedom of religion or belief was suppressed in this militantly atheist state, why and how freedom of expression, freedom of association, and just about every other right, was really severely limited. And what the international standards were at that time. After I left Columbia, that was around the time that the famous manifesto from Andrei Sakharov, the world famous physicist, Nobel Prize winner, was made public. It was around the time that other kinds of dissident materials were becoming better known about life inside the Soviet Union post-Khrushchev.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you left Colombia with a master's degree, the Cold War ends, and you take a job at the Ford Foundation that has you traveling all around Eastern Europe, looking to end human rights abuses, assessing the challenges that face that region. I want to ask you about the treatment of women, and what you witnessed about the mistreatment of women in these regions. And does that tend to be a common denominator around the world when you assess human rights abuses?   Felice Gaer:   Well, there's no question that the treatment of women is different than the treatment of men. And it's true all over the world. But when I traveled in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the height of those years, height of the Cold War, and so forth, the issues of women's rights actually weren't one of the top issues on the agenda because the Soviet Union and East European countries appeared to be doing more for women than the Western countries.  They had them in governance. They had them in the parliament. They purported to support equality for women. It took some years for Soviet feminists, dissidents, to find a voice and to begin to point out all the ways in which they were treated in the same condescending, patriarchal style as elsewhere. But in those years, that was not a big issue in the air.  It was unusual for me, a 20-something year old woman from the United States to be traveling around Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, meeting with high officials and others, and on behalf of the Ford Foundation, trying to develop programming that would involve people to people contacts, that would involve developing programs where there was common expertise, like management training, and things of that sort. And I was really an odd, odd duck in that situation, and I felt it.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   I mentioned in my introduction, the Beijing World Conference on Women, can you reflect a little on what had a lasting impact there?   Felice Gaer:   Well, the Beijing World Conference on Women was the largest, and remains the largest conference that the United Nations has ever organized. There were over 35,000 women there, about 17,000 at the intergovernmental conference. I was on the US delegation there.  The simple statement that women's rights are human rights may seem hackneyed today. But when that was affirmed in the 1995 Beijing Outcome Document, it was a major political and conceptual breakthrough. It was largely focused on getting the UN to accept that the rights of women were actually international human rights and that they weren't something different. They weren't private, or outside the reach of investigators and human rights bodies. It was an inclusive statement, and it was a mind altering statement in the women's rights movement.  It not only reaffirmed that women's rights are human rights, but it went further in addressing the problems facing women in the language of human rights.  The earlier world conferences on women talked about equality, but they didn't identify violations of those rights. They didn't demand accountability of those rights. And they said absolutely nothing about creating mechanisms by which you could monitor, review, and hold people accountable, which is the rights paradigm. Beijing changed all that. It was a violations approach that was quite different from anything that existed before that.   Manya Brachear Pashman :  Did anything get forgotten? We talked about what had a lasting impact, but what seems to have been forgotten or have fallen to the wayside?   Felice Gaer:   Oh, I think it's just the opposite. I think the things that were in the Beijing conference have become Fuller and addressed in greater detail and are more commonly part of what goes on in the international discourse on women's rights and the status of women in public life. And certainly at the international level that's the case.  I'll give you just one example, the Convention Against Torture. I mean, when I became a member of the committee, the 10 person committee, I was the only woman. The committee really had, in 11 years, it had maybe said, four or five things about the treatment of women. And the way that torture, ill treatment, inhuman, degrading treatment may affect women.  It looked at the world through the eyes of male prisoners in detention. And it didn't look at the world through the eyes of women who suffer private violence, gender based violence, that is that the state looks away from and ignores and therefore sanctions, and to a certain extent endorses.  And it didn't identify the kinds of things that affect women, including women who are imprisoned, and why and where in many parts of the world. What one does in terms of education or dress or behavior may lead you into a situation where you're being abused, either in a prison or outside of prison. These are issues that are now part of the regular review, for example, at the Committee Against Torture, issues of of trafficking, issues of gender based violence, the Sharia law, the hudud punishments of whipping and stoning, are part of the concern of the committee, which they weren't before.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, having that woman's perspective, having your perspective on that committee was really important and really changed and broadened the discussion.   Felice Gaer:   Absolutely. When I first joined the committee, the first session I was at, we had a review of China. And so I very politely asked a question about the violence and coercion associated with the population policy in China, as you know, forced abortions and things of that sort. This was a question that had come up before the women's convention, the CEDAW, and I thought it was only appropriate that it also come up in the Committee Against Torture.  In our discussion afterwards, the very stern chairman of the committee, a former constable, said to me, ‘You know, this might be of interest to you, Ms. Gaer, but this has nothing to do with the mandate of this committee.' I explained to him why it did, in some detail. And when I finished pointing out all of those elements–including the fact that the people carried out these practices on the basis of state policy–when I finished, there was a silence.  And the most senior person in the room, who had been involved in these issues for decades, said, ‘I'm quite certain we can accommodate Ms. Gaer's concerns in the conclusions,' and they did.  That's the kind of thing that happens when you look at issues from a different perspective and raise them.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   You talked about being an odd duck in your 20s, as a woman traveling around Eastern Europe, trying to address these challenges. I'm curious if that woman in her 20s would have been able to stand up to this committee like that, and give that thorough an explanation? Or did it take some years of experience, of witnessing these issues, perhaps being ignored?    Felice Gaer:  Well, I think as we go through life, you learn new things. And I learned new things along the way. I learned about the universal norms, I learned about how to apply them, how they had been applied, and how they hadn't been applied. And in that process, developed what I would say is a sharper way of looking at these issues.  But the Bosnian conflict in particular, made the issue of gender based violence against women, especially in war, but not only in war, into a mainstream issue, and helped propel these issues, both inside the United Nations and outside, the awareness changed.  I remember asking the International Red Cross representatives in Croatia, just across the border from Bosnia, if they had encountered any victims of gender based violence or rape, and they said, ‘No.' And I said, ‘Did you ask them about these concerns?' And they sort of looked down and looked embarrassed, looked at each other and looked back at me and said, ‘Oh.' There were no words. There were no understandings of looking at the world this way. And that has changed. That has changed dramatically today. I mean, if you look at the situation in Ukraine, the amount of gender based violence that has been documented is horrifying, just horrifying, but it's been documented.   Manya Brachear Pashman   So is the world of human rights advocacy male-dominated, female-dominated, is it fairly balanced these days? And has that balance made the difference in what you're talking about?   Felice Gaer:   You know, I wrote an article in 1988, the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, about why women's rights weren't being addressed. And one of the points I drew attention to was the fact that the heads of almost all the major organizations at the time were all male. And that it wasn't seen as a concern. A lot of that has changed. There's really a real variety of perspectives now that are brought to bear.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   So we've talked a lot about the importance of [a] woman's perspective. Does a Jewish perspective matter as well?   Felice Gaer:   Oh, on every issue on every issue and, you know, I worked a great deal on freedom of religion and belief, as an issue. That's a core issue of AJC, and it's a fundamental rights issue. And it struck me as surprising that with all the attention to freedom of religion, the concern about antisemitic acts was not being documented by mainstream human rights organizations. And it wasn't being documented by the UN experts on freedom of religion or belief either. I drew this to the attention of Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, who was recently ending his term as Special Rapporteur on Freedom of religion or belief. And he was really very struck by this. And he went, and he did a little bit of research. And he found out that since computerized records had been prepared at the United Nations, that there had been no attention, no attention at all, to cases of alleged antisemitic incidents. And he began a project to record the kinds of problems that existed and to identify what could be done about it. We helped him in the sense that we organized a couple of colloquia, we brought people from all over the world together to talk about the dimensions of the problem and the documentation that they did, and the proposals that they had for addressing it. And he, as you may recall, wrote a brilliant report in 2019, setting out the problems of global antisemitism. And he followed that up in 2022, before leaving his position with what he called an action plan for combating antisemitism, which has concrete specific suggestions for all countries around the world as to what they can do to help combat antisemitism and antisemitic acts, including and to some extent, starting with adopting the working definition on antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, but also activities in in the area of education, training, training of law enforcement officials, documentation and public action. It's a real contribution to the international discourse and to understanding that freedom of religion or belief belongs to everyone.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   And do you believe that Dr. Shaheed's report is being absorbed, comprehended by those that need to hear it that need to understand it?   Felice Gaer   I've been delighted to see the way that the European Union has engaged with Dr. Shaheed and his report has developed standards and expectations for all 27 member states, and that other countries and other parts of the world have done the same. So yeah, I do think they're engaging with it. I hope there'll be a lot more because the problem has only grown.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   On the one year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, JBI issued a report that sounded the alarm on the widespread violations committed against Ukrainians, you mentioned the amount of gender based violence Since that has taken place, and the other just catastrophic consequences of this war. Felice, you've been on the front row of Eastern European affairs and human rights advocacy in that region. From your perspective, and I know this is a big question: How did this war happen?   Felice Gaer:   I'll just start by saying: it didn't start in 2022. And if you have to look at what happened, the events of 2014, to understand the events of 2022. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, or even during the breakup, there was a period where the 15th constituent Union republics of the Soviet Union developed a greater national awareness, really, and some of them had been independent as some of them hadn't been, but they developed a much greater awareness. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the 15 countries, including Russia, as one of the 15, became independent entities. And aside from having more members in the United Nations and the Council of Europe and places like that, it led to much more robust activity, in terms of respecting human rights and other areas of endeavor in each of those countries.  The situation in Russia, with a head of state who has been there, with one exception, a couple of years, for 20 years, has seen an angry desire to reestablish an empire. That's the only thing you can say really about it.  If they can't dominate by having a pro-Russian group in charge in the country, then there have been invasions, there have been Russian forces, Russia-aligned forces sent to the different countries. So whether it's Georgia, or Moldova, or Ukraine, we've seen this pattern.  And unfortunately, what happened in 2022, is the most egregious and I would say, blatant such example. In 2014, the Russians argued that it was local Russian speaking, little green men who were conducting hostilities in these places, or it was local people who wanted to realign with Russia, who were demanding changes, and so forth. But in the 2022 events, Russia's forces invaded, wearing Russian insignia and making it quite clear that this was a matter of state policy that they were pursuing, and that they weren't going to give up.  And it's led to the tragic developments that we've all seen inside the country, and the horrific violence, the terrible, widespread human rights violations. And in war, we know that human rights violations are usually the worst.  And so the one good spot on the horizon: the degree to which these abuses have been documented, it's unprecedented to have so much documentation so early in a conflict like this, which someday may lead to redress and accountability for those who perpetrated it. But right now, in the middle of these events, it's just a horror.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   What other human rights situations do we need to be taking more seriously now? And where has there been significant progress?   Felice Gaer:   Well, I'll talk about the problem spots if I may for a minute. Everyone points to North Korea as the situation without parallel, that's what a UN Commission of Inquiry said, without parallel in the world. The situation in Iran? Well, you just need to watch what's happened to the protesters, the women and others who have protested over 500 people in the streets have died because of this. 15,000 people imprisoned, and Iran's prisons are known for ill treatment and torture.  The situation in Afghanistan is atrocious. The activities of the Taliban, which they were known for in the 1990s are being brought back. They are normalizing discrimination, they are engaged in probably the most hardline gender discrimination we've seen anywhere where women can't work outside the home, girls can't be educated, political participation is denied. The constitution has been thrown out. All kinds of things. The latest is women can't go to parks, they can't go to university, and they can't work for NGOs. This continues. It's a major crisis.  Well, there are other countries, from Belarus, to Sudan to Uzbekistan, and China, that we could also talk about at great length, lots of problems in the world, and not enough effort to expose them, address them and try to ameliorate them.   Manya Brachear Pashman   So what do we do about that? What can our listeners do about that, when we hear this kind of grim report?   Felice Gaer:   Work harder. Pay attention when you hear about rights issues. Support rights organizations. Take up cases. Seek redress. Be concerned about the victims. All these things need to be done.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   I don't know how you maintain your composure and your cool, Felice, because you have faced so much in terms of challenges and push back. So thank you so much for all you have done for women, for the Jewish people, and for the world at large. Thank you, thank you, thank you.   Felice Gaer:   Thank you, Manya.

In this episode of AUHSD Future Talks, Superintendent Matsuda interviews Dr. Amra Sabic-El-Rayess, associate professor of practice at Teachers College, Columbia University. During their talk, Dr. Sabic-El-Rayess discusses her story, storytelling, radicalization, the importance of student and teacher relationships, identity, and her message to students.Dr. Sabic-El-Rayess has taught, researched, and published on a range of issues in education, including mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative methodologies, teaching quality, development, inclusion, radicalization, othering, educational displacement, storytelling, marginalization, social transformation, social disintegration, social norm formation, social mobility, higher education policy, transitional justice, Islam, financial inclusion of women, and corruption. Dr. Sabic-El-Rayess' most recent work on radicalization and building resilience to hate, othering, and exclusion has sparked significant international interest and Dr. Sabic-El-Rayess has delivered 50+ invited lectures in the U.S., South Korea, China, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Germany, Austria, Indonesia, Jordan, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy, the United Kingdom, Qatar, and India.More than twenty-five years ago, Dr. Sabic-El-Rayess first became a teacher as a young teen during the Bosnian Genocide. Her lived experience of being an object of hate and ethnic persecution has informed her scholarship on building resilience to othering and extremism via education. She was awarded a 2021 Finalist Medal for Excellence in Young Adult Nonfiction by the American Library Association and Best Book recognition by School Library Journal, Malala Fund, Capitol Choices, and Children's Center for Literature for her nonfiction work exploring resilience to exclusion, othering, and hate. Dr. Sabic-El-Rayess obtained her PhD (2012) in Comparative and International Education with a specialization in Economics at Columbia University. Her doctoral research employed mixed methods to examine the intricacies of favor reciprocation and corruption in education, providing empirical evidence on how such phenomena usurped merited social mobility in education and triggered displacement. Dr. Sabic-El-Rayess holds a Master of Philosophy (2010) from Columbia University's Teachers College and Masters in Economic and Political Development with a specialization in the Persian Gulf from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (2004), as well as a B.A. in Economics from Brown University (2000). She is a recipient of multiple awards, including grants from the Smith Richardson Foundation; the U.S. State Department; Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Kennan Institute; International Research and Exchange Board; Harriman Institute for Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Studies; and others.

Gain the courage to speak up about menstrual equity in today's episode featuring Laura Strausfeld. Listen in as we tackle issues regarding inequitable state laws regarding women's health, their impact on women's lives, and how to solve them. If you want to be a part of ending the stigma against periods, you won't want to miss this episode.Key takeaways to listen forTampon Tax: What it is, who it affects the most, and how it impacts people who have periodsReasons you should examine the menstrual products you useWays to improve legislations that concern people who identify as womxnOther problems that might occur after the dissolution of the tampon taxThe significance of comprehensive sex education in schoolsWhy we should be more open about discussing menstruationResources mentioned in this episodeRobin Danielson ActAbout Laura StrausfeldLaura is the co-founder and executive director of Period Law. She runs Tax Free. Period, Period Law's law and advocacy campaign to dismantle the tampon tax in the US. In 2016, she orchestrated the class action lawsuit challenging New York's tampon tax as unconstitutional, resulting in immediate legislative repeal. In 2019, she hosted the first legal conference devoted to The Tampon Tax LAB (Legal Action Brainstorm at Columbia Law School, co-hosted by the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, and has since recruited over 50 pro bono attorneys to research and challenge the tampon tax in court.Laura has written and spoken publicly about menstrual product safety. She has a wide-ranging project-based background, including as a plaintiffs' attorney, founding board member of the Nest Foundation, development strategist for the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, teacher, writer/director/producer of theater and film, and Anton Chekhov scholar at Columbia University's Harriman Institute. She has a BA from Yale and JD from Columbia.Connect with LauraEmail: laura@periodequity.orgSupport the show! Want to learn more about us? Visit our website at www.periodtopause.com or send an email to amanda@periodtopause.com.Follow us on Instagram: @periodtopauseJoin our Facebook Group: Period to Pause

In this episode of the “Explaining Ukraine” podcast, we ask whether Russian actions in Ukraine amount to genocide. Our guest is Christopher Atwood, a researcher at the Harriman Institute of Columbia University, and a contributor and advisor to a report on Russia's breaches of the genocide convention in Ukraine, recenently published by the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. Host: Volodymyr Yermolenko, Ukrainian philosopher and chief editor of UkraineWorld.org. UkraineWorld is brought to you by Internews Ukraine. Support us on patreon.com/ukraineworld Link to the report: https://newlinesinstitute.org/an-independent-legal-analysis-of-the-russian-federations-breaches-of-the-genocide-convention-in-ukraine-and-the-duty-to-prevent/

Brief news update: While Russia advances through the streets of Sieverodonetsk, Ukraine breaks through enemy lines in an offensive on the Kherson region. The US agrees to send Ukraine a new type of long-range rocket artillery after some very confusing negotiations. The branch of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine breaks away from Moscow and its future is uncertain. (08:00) We have an interview with Christopher Atwood, a graduate student at the Harriman Institute at Columbia University in New York. He is a co-author of a report by the New Lines Institute and Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights which makes a legal case to classify Russia's atrocities against Ukrainians as a genocide. We give special attention to the role played by Russian media in spreading genocidal rhetoric. Report from New Lines Institute https://newlinesinstitute.org/an-independent-legal-analysis-of-the-russian-federations-breaches-of-the-genocide-convention-in-ukraine-and-the-duty-to-prevent/ Twitter Anthony: @Bartaway Romeo: @VagrantJourno Ukraine Without Hype: @HypeUkraine Christopher: @tca1_ Patreon https://www.patreon.com/UkraineWithoutHype Music Oh, the Red Viburnum in the Meadow (Traditional)

Foreign Policy recommends: Voices of UkraineThis week on FP Playlist, we feature an episode from Voices of Ukraine from the Harriman Institute for Russian, Eurasian and East Europe Studies at Columbia University. In the episode, host Masha Udensiva-Brenner spoke with a Ukrainian journalist about the conflict. Subscribe on your favorite podcast app or listen on this page. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Russia-Ukraine war, now in its 11th week, continues to prove analysts wrong. This week on The Thought Project podcast, Julie George, a professor of Political Science at the CUNY Graduate Center and Queens College and a visiting professor at Columbia University's Harriman Institute, explains why the conflict confounds her and other regional experts. “It's very hard to predict how the war will unfold, in part because we predict the future based on previous events,” George says, “and a lot about this war is unprecedented and very different and reflects a different tactic taken by the Russians and by the Russian leadership.” George describes President Vladimir Putin's stance as, "We are not going to accept failures in this war, and when faced with pushback, we will escalate and go on the offensive." George comments on the U.S. foreign policy approach to the war, including the tight coordination with NATO and the billions of dollars in aid sent to Ukraine. She likens the weapons support for Ukraine to the World War II Lend-Lease Act, and she notes that U.S. leadership is sending a “signal to Putin that the expectation for a quick war, the expectation for an easy victory, the expectation for American acquiescence and European acquiescence to this just brazen occupation of a sovereign state is something that the U.S. will resist.”

A podcast from Columbia University's Harriman Institute. Hear stories of lives upended by Russia's war on Ukraine.  

On todays podcast I am happy to be hosting Spencer Jakab, Editor of the "Heard on the Street" column at The Wall Street Journal and Author of the recently released book "The Revolution That Wasn't: GameStop, Reddit, and the Fleecing of Small Investors". On the podcast we talk about what Wall Street Bets is, the events leading up to the GameStop short squeeze, why Robinhood halted trading and why it wasn't a revolution. 0:00 - Introduction0:22 - Influence for writing the book?3:30 - How did WallStreetBets start and what attracted so many like  minded people to the group?7:30 - Wall Street makes money from volatility10:40 - How traders started gambling18:25 - Who was Keith Gill and what attracted people to his investment ideas?22:55 - Other short squeezes30:15 - Taking advantage of Wall Street Bets31:55 - Why Robinhood halted trading?38:40 - Why it wasn't a Revolution44:00 - Do you believe Hedge Funds have learnt from this situation?Spencer is the editor of  “Heard on the Street,” the Wall Street Journal's financial and economic analysis column. Before joining Heard as Deputy Editor in 2015 he wrote the “Ahead of the Tape” column which ran each weekday and previewed the day's most important economic or business event. Before that Spencer wrote “Lex” for Britain's Financial Times.Spencer's first career was in finance. He lived in Europe for a decade, mostly working as an emerging markets stock analyst and later the head of a research team at a big bank. He learned a lot, travelled to some very cool places, but got bored with corporate life and decided to write about money instead of making so darn much of it.Spencer earned a master's degree in international affairs from Columbia University, a certificate from Columbia's Harriman Institute, and a B.A. in political science from Brandeis University.Spencer Jakab - Website - https://spencerjakab.com/Twitter - https://twitter.com/SpencerjakabLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/spencer-jakab-43b635b/WTFinance -Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/wtfinancee/Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/67rpmjG92PNBW0doLyPvfnTikTok - https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeUjj9xV/iTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wtfinance/id1554934665?uo=4LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthony-fatseas-761066103/Twitter - https://twitter.com/AnthonyFatseas

At this week's Round Table, Inica, Kenisha, Jack, and Madeline spoke with ​​Alexander Cooley, the Claire Tow Professor of Political Science at Barnard College and Director of the Harriman Institute for the Study of Russia, Eurasia and Eastern Europe at Columbia University, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year! Professor Cooley helped us understand international politics and historic domination by the US by drawing an analogy to Walmart that we won't soon forget. Change can come from places we don't expect and things that seem dominant can be toppled—like Amazon superseding Walmart. So what went wrong? Professor Cooley talked us through the many variables. We talked about the War on Terror, the illiberalism of most international orders, the CNN effect and how the rise of global media has mitigated it, the benefits and limitations of international rankings, and American hypocrisy—along with the role of technology in making the gap between rhetoric and reality more apparent. Professor Cooley helped us understand how states are social creatures that, like all social creatures, want to project certain images. He helped us recognize that the United States can't be all things to all countries; we have to be principled and to think about priorities and not be in constant competition with everyone else. All politics is about power but also about trade offs and figuring out what we are willing to give up to advance what we care most about. Thank you for joining us! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/nextgenpolitics/message

In the latest episode of Expert Opinions, a podcast from the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and Eurasianet, Masha Udensiva-Brenner interviews Kimberly Marten about her research on climate change in the Russian Arctic.

In the latest episode of Expert Opinions, a podcast from the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and Eurasianet, Masha Udensiva-Brenner interviews Freedom House researchers Nate Schenkkan and Isabel Linzer about their report on transnational repression. Photo by Photo by Angela Compagnone on Unsplash

There are ways to improve the relationship between Russia and the United States, but it's going to be a long road. This week Timothy Frye continues his look at the possibilities of joint gains and the mutual benefits of better political relations between the two countries. Timothy Frye is the Marshall D. Shulman Professor in Political Science at Columbia University and Co-Director of a research laboratory at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. He worked for the US Information Agency in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, advised the Russian Securities and Exchange Commission in the 1990s, and directed the Harriman Institute at Columbia from 2009 to 2015. Born in Utica, New York, he earned a BA in Russian Language and Literature from Middlebury College and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University. He is the editor of Post-Soviet Affairs and the author of 4 books. He lives in New York City. Episode Timestamps: :30 Next steps to a better US/Russia relationship 2:31 Putin in Power until 2036? 7:12 Putin and Hillary Clinton 9:33 Trump's Idol: Putin 11:34 What did Putin have on Trump? 13:08 Trump's a Putin Wannabe 16:55 Putin – Biden Relationship 23:15 Should the US appease or help Putin? 28:00 The Path Forward for a Better US/Russia relationship ---------------------- Learn More:  https://www.curtco.com/meetmeinthemiddle Follow Us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/politicsMMITM Hosted by: Bill Curtis and Jane Albrecht Edited and Sound Engineering by: Joey Salvia Theme Music by: Celleste and Eric Dick A CurtCo Media Production https://www.curtco.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Timothy Frye kicks off our series on US-Russia relations. Timothy Frye is the Marshall D. Shulman Professor in Political Science at Columbia University and Co-Director of a research laboratory at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. He worked for the US Information Agency in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, advised the Russian Securities and Exchange Commission in the 1990s, and directed the Harriman Institute at Columbia from 2009 to 2015. Born in Utica, New York, he earned a B.A. in Russian Language and Literature from Middlebury College and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University. He is the editor of Post-Soviet Affairs and the author of four books. He lives in New York City. Episode Timestamps: 2:55 The U.S. view of Russia and Russia's view of the US 8:51 Russian Backgrounds and Diversity 11:14 Power distribution in Russia 14:10 Experiencing 911 from Russia 21:20 Putin's Rise to Power  Additional Links: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KWP9X92/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0  ---------------------- Learn More:  https://www.curtco.com/meetmeinthemiddle Follow Us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/politicsMMITM Hosted by: Bill Curtis and Jane Albrecht Edited and Sound Engineering by: Joey Salvia Theme Music by: Celleste and Eric Dick A CurtCo Media Production https://www.curtco.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr Alex Cooley, the Claire Tow Professor of Political Science at Barnard College and Director of Columbia University's Harriman Institute, and Dr Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, discuss the recent Geneva summit between Presidents Biden and Putin and its implications for strategic stability between the US and Russia with host Dr Neil Melvin, Director RUSI International Security Studies. 

In this episode of "Keen On", Andrew is joined by Joshua Yaffa, the author of "Between Two Fires: Truth, Ambition, and Compromise in Putin's Russia", to discuss modern Russia and the inner struggles of the people who sustain Vladimir Putin's rule. Joshua Yaffa is a correspondent for The New Yorker, based primarily in Moscow, Russia. He is also the author of Between Two Fires: Truth, Ambition, and Compromise in Putin's Russia, published in January 2020 by Tim Duggan Books. He has also written for the Economist, The New York Times Magazine, National Geographic, Bloomberg Businessweek, The New Republic, and Foreign Affairs. For his work in Russia, he has been named a fellow at New America, a recipient of the American Academy's Berlin Prize, and a finalist for the Livingston Award. He holds a bachelor's degree from Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, and master's degrees in journalism and international affairs from Columbia University, where he was a visiting scholar at the Harriman Institute and taught at the journalism school for several years. He is originally from San Diego, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the latest episode of Expert Opinions - Russia, Eurasia, a podcast from the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and Eurasianet, Masha Udensiva-Brenner interviews anti-corruption investigator Thomas Mayne about kleptocracy and what it means for democracies all over the world.

In the latest episode of Expert Opinions - Russia, Eurasia, a podcast from the Harriman Institute at Columbia University, Masha Udensiva-Brenner interviews Alexis Lerner about her scholarship on authoritarianism and dissent in Russia, particularly in the context of imprisoned Russian opposition leader and political activist Alexei Navalny. They also discuss Lerner’s book project on graffiti in post-Soviet countries and how the Russian authorities use graffiti as a way to drown out public dissent. Photo by Tamara Malaniy on Unsplash

In the latest episode of Expert Opinions - Russia, Eurasia, a podcast from the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and Eurasianet.org, Masha Udensiva-Brenner interviews Matthew Murray about recently-imprisoned Russian opposition leader and political activist Alexei Navalny and his transparency efforts in Russia. Murray started doing business in St. Petersburg in 1991 and became involved in business ethics and anticorruption efforts there. He got to know Navalny personally in the mid aughts, and also knows Sergei Kolosenikov, the whistleblower featured in Navalny’s recent video exposing Vladimir Putin’s alleged scheme to build a lavish palace on the Black Sea with Russian taxpayer money. Photo by Mitya Aleshkovskiy via Wikimedia Commons.

Join L+D's Carla Silver and guest Steve Solnick, Head of the Calhoun School in NYC, as we talk about the college admissions process and the college experience in 2020. Students this month are getting ready to hear from colleges and universities in the first round of college admissions. We talk about our national obsession (or is there one?) in a small, elite list of colleges and universities. Are we are really going to let a defunct magazine (US News and World Report) tell us which colleges are valuable? Maybe we don't. Steve brings a whole new perspective to the college madness.Steve Solnick is a season educational leader. He currently serves as Head of School at The Calhoun School, one of New York City’s oldest progressive schools. Calhoun is dedicated to fostering a love of learning and strong sense of community in students from nursery through high school through a curriculum that is experiential, project-based, and values-driven. From 2012 to 2017, Steve served as president of Warren Wilson College in Asheville, N.C., the only national liberal arts college that fully integrates work and service into its educational program. Before that, Steve spent a decade as the Ford Foundation Representative in Moscow and then New Delhi where he provided leadership to the Foundation’s work in the areas of human rights, higher education, arts and culture, sustainable agriculture and sexual and reproductive health. Before joining the Ford Foundation, he was associate professor of political science at Columbia University and served as coordinator for Russian Studies at the Harriman Institute. He is the author of Stealing the State: Control and Collapse in Soviet Institutions and numerous journal articles and book chapters. He has been a full member of the Council on Foreign Relations since 2001, has served as President of the Board of Governors of the American Embassy School of New Delhi, and has been a Trustee of Barnard College since 2014. Steve graduated from MIT as a Physics major, and then received a B.A. in Politics and Economics from Worcester College, Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University.Support the show (https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001qgI9GeY_mqToEV7UgRCwMymNBYIpS6RTjG1bVZu6TbUnlLbp1lELhuI6gvjg-by6_5hpextPmSu4XcNmhRjAf82q6VB-9Ap9P4ImLXQDHML6j3yAzNine7Jo3AgOmu1G56v0xycE7vXu2fCY_V4wBKLkoMaol7LtcFHjF6iKPr9s48OanvbFjE0YzKADCOjN)

The New Yorker's Moscow correspondent, Joshua Yaffa, joins us from Moscow in fact to talk about the conditions in Russia during the pandemic, his latest book Between Two Fires, and the oft-debated Russian interference in US elections. Additionally, Yuri Levada's work and coining of the term "Wily Man" figures prominently into this discussion having played a role in Yaffa's attempt to understand the characters he sought to portray in his book. This is a fascinating conversation, and we hope you enjoy! Be sure to follow Joshua Yaffa on Twitter: @yaffaesque ! ABOUT THE GUEST https://images4.penguinrandomhouse.com/author/2148444 Joshua Yaffa is a correspondent for The New Yorker, based primarily in Moscow, Russia. He is also the author of Between Two Fires: Truth, Ambition, and Compromise in Putin's Russia, published in January 2020 by Tim Duggan Books. He has also written for the Economist, The New York Times Magazine, National Geographic, Bloomberg Businessweek, The New Republic, and Foreign Affairs. For his work in Russia, he has been named a fellow at New America, a recipient of the American Academy's Berlin Prize, and a finalist for the Livingston Award. He holds a bachelor's degree from Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, and master's degrees in journalism and international affairs from Columbia University, where he was a visiting scholar at the Harriman Institute and taught at the journalism school for several years. He is originally from San Diego, California. Check out his archive of work on the New Yorker here: https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/joshua-yaffa Also, watch Yaffa's interview on Putin with Frontline here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sm_0o7l0Ao Check out Yaffa's excellent book here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/555637/between-two-fires-by-joshua-yaffa/ https://images2.penguinrandomhouse.com/cover/9780593167083 NOTE: This episode was recorded on September 28th, 2020 via Zoom. CREDITS Co-Host/Associate Producer: Lera Toropin Associate Producer: Cullan Bendig Assistant Producer: Samantha Farmer Assistant Producer/Administrator: Kathryn Yegorov-Crate Recording, Editing, and Sound Design: Michelle Daniel, Charlie Harper Co-Host/Co-Producer: Matthew Orr (Connect: facebook.com/orrrmatthew) Co-Producer: Tom Rehnquist (Connect: Twitter @RehnquistTom) Music Producer: Charlie Harper (Connect: facebook.com/charlie.harper.1485 Instagram: @charlieharpermusic) www.charlieharpermusic.com (Main Theme by Charlie Harper and additional background music by Charlie Harper, Ketsa, Demoiselle, Soularflair, Polish Ambassador, ) Executive Producer & Creator: Michelle Daniel (Connect: facebook.com/mdanielgeraci Instagram: @michelledaniel86) www.msdaniel.com DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this episode do not necessarily reflect those of the show or the University of Texas at Austin. Special Guest: Joshua Yaffa.

In this episode, Matt discussed with Dr. Maria Snegovaya the leading issues of the day in the Slavic region. Namely, the aftermath of Russia's recent regional elections, the Kremlin's response to Alexei Navalny's poisoning, and the ongoing spectre of Russian intervention in Belarus's post-election crisis. Connect with Dr. Snegovaya on Twitter: @MSnegovaya UPDATE (9-30-2020) View Dr. Snegovaya's research with CEPA here: https://cepa.org/russian-youth-and-civic-engagement/?fbclid=IwAR19gUFfqtpS4xkRCk0DH2RK-f3MEAGbVe2s8C3f_I6Sq3LXBCVU4UOlOV0 ABOUT THE GUEST https://mariasnegovaya.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/gjgkoiK4_400x400.jpg Maria Snegovaya is a Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis. Her research focus is the democratic backsliding, the spread of populist actors in Eastern Europe, and Russia's domestic and foreign policy. She holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University. In the past, Maria collaborated with the Institute for the Study of War, the Brookings Institution, the Free Russia Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Eurasia Group, and Freedom House. Dr. Snegovaya is the author of several reports and studies, including “Policy Memo: Justifying a Counter-Cyclical US-Russia Policy (the Case of Energy Dependence)” for The Harriman Institute; “Stifling the Public Sphere: Media and Civil Society: Russia” for the National Endowment for Democracy; and “Putin's Information Warfare in Ukraine. Soviet Origins of Russia's Hybrid Warfare. Analytical Report” for The Institute for the Study of War. Dr. Snegovaya's publications have appeared in the Vedomosti Business Daily, The Washington Post's Monkey Cage (Political Science blog), The Huffington Post, The National Interest, The New Republic, and The American Interest. Her articles have been referenced by (among others) David Brooks (NYT), Andrew Sullivan (The Dish), Bloomberg, The Economist and The Telegraph in their columns, and she is frequently invited to give talks at U.S. think tanks, including the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center and The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. See Dr. Snegovaya's most recent WaPo article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/15/if-putin-sends-troops-belarus-dont-expect-russians-applaud/ Also, check out Maxim Mironov's LiveBlog journal page (in Russian) here: https://echo.msk.ru/blog/mmironov/2710287-echo/ And finally, the link to the Novaya Gazeta article Matt mentions is here: https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/09/16/87115-kredit-do-sverzheniya NOTE: This episode was recorded on Friday, September 18th, 2020 via Zoom. CREDITS Host/Co-Producer: Matthew Orr (Connect: facebook.com/orrrmatthew) Co-Producer: Tom Rehnquist (Connect: Twitter @RehnquistTom) Associate Producer: Lera Toropin Associate Producer: Cullan Bendig Assistant Producer: Samantha Farmer Assistant Producer: Milena D-K Assistant Producer: Katherine E. Birch Assistant Producer/Administrator: Kathryn Yegorov-Crate Recording, Editing, and Sound Design: Michelle Daniel Music Producer: Charlie Harper (Connect: facebook.com/charlie.harper.1485 Instagram: @charlieharpermusic) www.charlieharpermusic.com (Main Theme by Charlie Harper. Additional background music by Charlie Harper and Michelle Daniel, Pistol Jazz, Scott Holmes, Kevin MacLeod, Glad Rags, John Bartmann, Ketsa, Gorowski, and Blue Dot Sessions) Executive Producer & Creator: Michelle Daniel (Connect: facebook.com/mdanielgeraci Instagram: @michelledaniel86) www.msdaniel.com DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this episode do not necessarily reflect those of the show or the University of Texas at Austin. Special Guest: Maria Snegovaya.

We interview Lucia Savchick (IDLO, fmr UN IOM, Harriman Institute, Columbia SIPA) on her international development work in Mongolia & Uzbekistan. We also discuss relations between Armenia & Azerbaijan. Last, Lucia tells us what it is like living in Italy during the Coronavirus outbreak.

Today's guest is Yana Gorokhovskaia, a postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University's Harriman Institute from 2016-2019. She researches authoritarian politics and civil society in post-Soviet states. Earlier this week, Gorokhovskaia authored an article at Eurasianet, titled “Moscow's Local Election: Ghosts, Disqualification, and Real Political Competition,” about the recent electoral shenanigans in Russia's capital.Gorokhovskaia has written about local politics in Russia for years, and she was kind enough to come on the show to explain how she got onto this subject, and what the latest developments in the Moscow City Duma election mean more broadly for Russia's anti-Kremlin opposition.Follow Yana on Twitter here:https://twitter.com/gorokhovskaiaRead her article at Eurasianet here:https://eurasianet.org/perspectives-moscows-local-election-ghosts-disqualification-and-real-political-competitionSupport this very podcast here:www.patreon.com/kevinrothrockMusic and audio:Ну погоди, episode 14, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncHd3sxpEbo&t=7sОлег Анофриев, Бременские музыканты, “Говорят, мы бяки-буки,” www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-3wC7gkMDQSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/kevinrothrock)

This episode explores the ins and outs of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) nearly two decades after its founding, as well as China’s evolving role within the organization. Our guest, Dr. Alexander Cooley, uncovers the current challenges and opportunities for the organization as the SCO’s membership and China’s foreign policy aspirations expand. Dr. Cooley analyzes potential future areas of contention and cooperation between China and other SCO member states. Dr. Alexander Cooley is Director of the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and a professor of political science at Barnard College. He has written extensively on Eurasian and Central Asian politics, including opinion pieces for The New York Times and Foreign Affairs. Additionally, Dr. Cooley serves on multiple international advisory boards and policy committees.

Novaya Gazeta's Elena Kostyuchenko on why she decided to report on Chechnya, what exactly foreigners misunderstand about Russian media censorship, and why her journalism isn't trying to change people. This week we respond to a talk Smith went to earlier this month at Columbia University between Elena, who is the Harriman Institute’s Paul Klebnikov Russian Civil Society Fellow, and the World Editor of BuzzFeed News, Miriam Elder. Special thanks to the Harriman Institute for letting us use the audio for the show.

How entrenched is corruption in the Eurasian region? This seminar explored its multifaceted implications, in cooperation with Transparency International Sweden, held on February 6, 2018. Corruption in the Eurasian region manifests itself in many ways. Politicians using state power to accumulate private wealth and the misuse of public funds effectively erodes the public legitimacy of most governments in the region. Similarly, foreign aid spent in Afghanistan to reconstruct and rebuild its economy often ends up in the pockets of warlords, further fuelling the military conflict in the country. Corruption thus manifests itself in many ways, not least in the financial and security realms. What can be done to tackle this deeply rooted corruption and what are its main implications for the region? Speakers: Sarah Chayes, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Alexander Cooley, Director of Columbia University's Harriman Institute for the Study of Russia, Eurasia and Eastern Europe Moderator: Martin Kragh, Head of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs This seminar is part of the series ‘Corruption and the World Order' that will explore and deepen the understanding of the various implications of corruption for security and the world order, in cooperation with Transparency International Sweden (TI). Three more seminars will be arranged during spring 2018.The seminar series is financed by Riksbankens Jubilumsfond (RJ).

Conversation with Maria Snegovaya, a scholar at Harriman Institute at Columbia University about why there's no smoke without fire, why leakers say that Trump team members continue to travel to Moscow for consultations, and why Donald Trump put himself in a cage. Recorded for broadcast on 91.7 FM WSUW.

This week, the interview is extra special because we have a guest I've personally been following for a long while, and I finally got a chance to virtually sit down and talk through his considerable areas of expertise. I'm pleasured to say we had a chance to sit down virtually with Professor Tom Nichols and talk international affairs, foreign policy and all the important things getting lost in the off-color political arguments lately. These are important issues to cyber security professionals that impact our daily lives - but rarely get discussed by someone with actual, credentialed expertise. Enjoy this one, friends, I know we did recording it. I want to thank Tom for being an awesome guest and lending his time to our show. If you want to read Tom's latest book, you can get it on Amazon, link HERE.   Guest Tom Nichols ( @RadioFreeTom ):  Dr. Thomas M. Nichols is a Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and at the Harvard Extension School, where he worked with the U.S. Air Force to create the program for the Certificate in Nuclear Deterrence Studies. He is a former Secretary of the Navy Fellow, and held the Naval War College's Forrest Sherman Chair of Public Diplomacy. Dr. Nichols was previously the chairman of the Strategy and Policy Department at the Naval War College. Before coming to Newport, he taught international relations and Soviet/Russian affairs at Dartmouth College and Georgetown University. Dr. Nichols was personal staff for defense and security affairs in the United States Senate to the late Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania, and was a Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. He is currently a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs in New York City. He was recently a Fellow in the International Security Program at the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University. He is the author of several books and articles, including Eve of Destruction: The Coming of Age of Preventive War (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), and No Use: Nuclear Weapons and U.S. National Security (University of Pennsylvania, 2014). His most recent book, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters was released by Oxford in 2017. Dr. Nichols holds a PhD from Georgetown, an MA from Columbia University, the Certificate of the Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union at Columbia, and a BA from Boston University.

Conversation with Fmr. State Representative Andy Jorgensen, Harriman Institute researcher Dmitry Dubrovsky, and popular Russian-American blogger Alexander Flint, about Donald Trump's relationship with the press, and the role that Kremlin's tool of propaganda war, RT network plays in spreading doubt and questioning of American institutions. RT works in a highly concerted effort to undermine our values through a steady drum beat of negative news about America, all while giving a friendly microphone to those critical of America, regardless of whether they come from the left or the right.

In The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction (University of Toronto Press, 2012), Mark R. Andryczyk takes his readers to an intriguing territory of dense narratives, arising from a complex network of literary, political, and philosophical connections that were accompanying the history of the countries constituting the USSR. Mark Andryczyk's research offers an insightful analysis of Ukrainian literature that was taking shape right after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during the emergence of Ukraine as an independent state. The Ukrainian literary scene of the 1990s was to some extent responding to a new political and social environment, revealing, and at times instigating, paradigmatic transformations. Becoming open to the West after almost seventy years of international isolation, Ukraine appeared to be building dialogues that involved identity and self-identification concerns locally and globally. In this process of awakened nationalconsciousness, which undoubtedly entailed a number of controversies, Andryczyk identifies a hero that communicates a diversity of searches and pursuits in the realm of ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, politics, etc. The intellectual, as the author argues, is a hero that gives a unique tint to the Ukrainian literature of the 1990s: although present in the literary scenes of other time periods, the intellectual acquires a stronger and a more eloquent voice in the 1990s. In his research, Andryczyk discerns a few types of the intellectual: The Swashbuckling Performer, The Ambassador to the West, The Sick Soul. Although distinct, their voices intermingle and echo each other: they may agree and/or argue with each other but they all mark an unrestrained impetus to make themselves heard. After decades of propaganda control, establishment suppression, and Communist Party's directions for artists, in post-Soviet Ukraine writers were seeking ways to exercise their freedom to write and to think. The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction is an in-depth investigation of how a text/narrative responds to a changing environment; how an artist finds a way amidst a captivating chaos in order to discover his/her truth and create a world of subtle harmony–fragile and yet vital. Mark R. Andryczyk teaches Ukrainian literature at the Slavic Department at Columbia University. He also administers the Ukrainian Studies at the Harriman Institute of Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Studies (Columbia University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction (University of Toronto Press, 2012), Mark R. Andryczyk takes his readers to an intriguing territory of dense narratives, arising from a complex network of literary, political, and philosophical connections that were accompanying the history of the countries constituting the USSR. Mark Andryczyk’s research offers an insightful analysis of Ukrainian literature that was taking shape right after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during the emergence of Ukraine as an independent state. The Ukrainian literary scene of the 1990s was to some extent responding to a new political and social environment, revealing, and at times instigating, paradigmatic transformations. Becoming open to the West after almost seventy years of international isolation, Ukraine appeared to be building dialogues that involved identity and self-identification concerns locally and globally. In this process of awakened nationalconsciousness, which undoubtedly entailed a number of controversies, Andryczyk identifies a hero that communicates a diversity of searches and pursuits in the realm of ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, politics, etc. The intellectual, as the author argues, is a hero that gives a unique tint to the Ukrainian literature of the 1990s: although present in the literary scenes of other time periods, the intellectual acquires a stronger and a more eloquent voice in the 1990s. In his research, Andryczyk discerns a few types of the intellectual: The Swashbuckling Performer, The Ambassador to the West, The Sick Soul. Although distinct, their voices intermingle and echo each other: they may agree and/or argue with each other but they all mark an unrestrained impetus to make themselves heard. After decades of propaganda control, establishment suppression, and Communist Party’s directions for artists, in post-Soviet Ukraine writers were seeking ways to exercise their freedom to write and to think. The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction is an in-depth investigation of how a text/narrative responds to a changing environment; how an artist finds a way amidst a captivating chaos in order to discover his/her truth and create a world of subtle harmony–fragile and yet vital. Mark R. Andryczyk teaches Ukrainian literature at the Slavic Department at Columbia University. He also administers the Ukrainian Studies at the Harriman Institute of Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Studies (Columbia University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction (University of Toronto Press, 2012), Mark R. Andryczyk takes his readers to an intriguing territory of dense narratives, arising from a complex network of literary, political, and philosophical connections that were accompanying the history of the countries constituting the USSR. Mark Andryczyk’s research offers an insightful analysis of Ukrainian literature that was taking shape right after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during the emergence of Ukraine as an independent state. The Ukrainian literary scene of the 1990s was to some extent responding to a new political and social environment, revealing, and at times instigating, paradigmatic transformations. Becoming open to the West after almost seventy years of international isolation, Ukraine appeared to be building dialogues that involved identity and self-identification concerns locally and globally. In this process of awakened nationalconsciousness, which undoubtedly entailed a number of controversies, Andryczyk identifies a hero that communicates a diversity of searches and pursuits in the realm of ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, politics, etc. The intellectual, as the author argues, is a hero that gives a unique tint to the Ukrainian literature of the 1990s: although present in the literary scenes of other time periods, the intellectual acquires a stronger and a more eloquent voice in the 1990s. In his research, Andryczyk discerns a few types of the intellectual: The Swashbuckling Performer, The Ambassador to the West, The Sick Soul. Although distinct, their voices intermingle and echo each other: they may agree and/or argue with each other but they all mark an unrestrained impetus to make themselves heard. After decades of propaganda control, establishment suppression, and Communist Party’s directions for artists, in post-Soviet Ukraine writers were seeking ways to exercise their freedom to write and to think. The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction is an in-depth investigation of how a text/narrative responds to a changing environment; how an artist finds a way amidst a captivating chaos in order to discover his/her truth and create a world of subtle harmony–fragile and yet vital. Mark R. Andryczyk teaches Ukrainian literature at the Slavic Department at Columbia University. He also administers the Ukrainian Studies at the Harriman Institute of Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Studies (Columbia University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction (University of Toronto Press, 2012), Mark R. Andryczyk takes his readers to an intriguing territory of dense narratives, arising from a complex network of literary, political, and philosophical connections that were accompanying the history of the countries constituting the USSR. Mark Andryczyk’s research offers an insightful analysis of Ukrainian literature that was taking shape right after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during the emergence of Ukraine as an independent state. The Ukrainian literary scene of the 1990s was to some extent responding to a new political and social environment, revealing, and at times instigating, paradigmatic transformations. Becoming open to the West after almost seventy years of international isolation, Ukraine appeared to be building dialogues that involved identity and self-identification concerns locally and globally. In this process of awakened nationalconsciousness, which undoubtedly entailed a number of controversies, Andryczyk identifies a hero that communicates a diversity of searches and pursuits in the realm of ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, politics, etc. The intellectual, as the author argues, is a hero that gives a unique tint to the Ukrainian literature of the 1990s: although present in the literary scenes of other time periods, the intellectual acquires a stronger and a more eloquent voice in the 1990s. In his research, Andryczyk discerns a few types of the intellectual: The Swashbuckling Performer, The Ambassador to the West, The Sick Soul. Although distinct, their voices intermingle and echo each other: they may agree and/or argue with each other but they all mark an unrestrained impetus to make themselves heard. After decades of propaganda control, establishment suppression, and Communist Party’s directions for artists, in post-Soviet Ukraine writers were seeking ways to exercise their freedom to write and to think. The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction is an in-depth investigation of how a text/narrative responds to a changing environment; how an artist finds a way amidst a captivating chaos in order to discover his/her truth and create a world of subtle harmony–fragile and yet vital. Mark R. Andryczyk teaches Ukrainian literature at the Slavic Department at Columbia University. He also administers the Ukrainian Studies at the Harriman Institute of Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Studies (Columbia University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction (University of Toronto Press, 2012), Mark R. Andryczyk takes his readers to an intriguing territory of dense narratives, arising from a complex network of literary, political, and philosophical connections that were accompanying the history of the countries constituting the USSR. Mark Andryczyk’s research offers an insightful analysis of Ukrainian literature that was taking shape right after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during the emergence of Ukraine as an independent state. The Ukrainian literary scene of the 1990s was to some extent responding to a new political and social environment, revealing, and at times instigating, paradigmatic transformations. Becoming open to the West after almost seventy years of international isolation, Ukraine appeared to be building dialogues that involved identity and self-identification concerns locally and globally. In this process of awakened nationalconsciousness, which undoubtedly entailed a number of controversies, Andryczyk identifies a hero that communicates a diversity of searches and pursuits in the realm of ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, politics, etc. The intellectual, as the author argues, is a hero that gives a unique tint to the Ukrainian literature of the 1990s: although present in the literary scenes of other time periods, the intellectual acquires a stronger and a more eloquent voice in the 1990s. In his research, Andryczyk discerns a few types of the intellectual: The Swashbuckling Performer, The Ambassador to the West, The Sick Soul. Although distinct, their voices intermingle and echo each other: they may agree and/or argue with each other but they all mark an unrestrained impetus to make themselves heard. After decades of propaganda control, establishment suppression, and Communist Party’s directions for artists, in post-Soviet Ukraine writers were seeking ways to exercise their freedom to write and to think. The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction is an in-depth investigation of how a text/narrative responds to a changing environment; how an artist finds a way amidst a captivating chaos in order to discover his/her truth and create a world of subtle harmony–fragile and yet vital. Mark R. Andryczyk teaches Ukrainian literature at the Slavic Department at Columbia University. He also administers the Ukrainian Studies at the Harriman Institute of Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Studies (Columbia University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction (University of Toronto Press, 2012), Mark R. Andryczyk takes his readers to an intriguing territory of dense narratives, arising from a complex network of literary, political, and philosophical connections that were accompanying the history of the countries constituting the USSR. Mark Andryczyk’s research offers an insightful analysis of Ukrainian literature that was taking shape right after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during the emergence of Ukraine as an independent state. The Ukrainian literary scene of the 1990s was to some extent responding to a new political and social environment, revealing, and at times instigating, paradigmatic transformations. Becoming open to the West after almost seventy years of international isolation, Ukraine appeared to be building dialogues that involved identity and self-identification concerns locally and globally. In this process of awakened nationalconsciousness, which undoubtedly entailed a number of controversies, Andryczyk identifies a hero that communicates a diversity of searches and pursuits in the realm of ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, politics, etc. The intellectual, as the author argues, is a hero that gives a unique tint to the Ukrainian literature of the 1990s: although present in the literary scenes of other time periods, the intellectual acquires a stronger and a more eloquent voice in the 1990s. In his research, Andryczyk discerns a few types of the intellectual: The Swashbuckling Performer, The Ambassador to the West, The Sick Soul. Although distinct, their voices intermingle and echo each other: they may agree and/or argue with each other but they all mark an unrestrained impetus to make themselves heard. After decades of propaganda control, establishment suppression, and Communist Party’s directions for artists, in post-Soviet Ukraine writers were seeking ways to exercise their freedom to write and to think. The Intellectual as Hero in 1990s Ukrainian Fiction is an in-depth investigation of how a text/narrative responds to a changing environment; how an artist finds a way amidst a captivating chaos in order to discover his/her truth and create a world of subtle harmony–fragile and yet vital. Mark R. Andryczyk teaches Ukrainian literature at the Slavic Department at Columbia University. He also administers the Ukrainian Studies at the Harriman Institute of Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Studies (Columbia University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

They never really went away, but for almost 20 years the world had a holiday from an old challenge and a new one; Russia and the prospect of nuclear war.Some thought, and more hoped that with the end of the Cold War, a newer world order would emerge that would enable an era of stability and peace. In a way, it did – but only in spots and for short periods of time.While for the last 15 years most of the attention was focused on the expansion of radical Islam, two not unrelated events began to wax. From the ashes of the Soviet Union, fed by a charismatic leader and a resource extraction economy, Russian began to reassert itself in a manner consistent with the last 500 years of its history, and in parallel – the boogyman of the second half of the 20th Century began to grow as well; the proliferation and possible use nuclear weapons.To discuss this and more for the full hour will be Dr. Tom Nichols,Tom is a professor at the Naval War College and at the Harvard Extension School, as well as a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs in New York City and a Fellow of the International History Institute at Boston University. Previously he was a Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. Before coming to the War College, he taught international relations and Russian affairs for many years at Dartmouth College and Georgetown University. In Washington, he was personal staff for defense and security affairs in the United States Senate to the late Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania. He received his PhD from Georgetown, an MA from Columbia University, and the Certificate of the Harriman Institute at Columbia. He's also a five-time undefeated Jeopardy! champion. He played in the 1994 Tournament of Champions, is listed in the Jeopardy! Hall of Fame. He played his final match in the 2005 Ultimate Tournament of Champions.

A discussion with five ground-breaking Russian journalists on the future of investigative journalism in Russia and the challenges of working in a country with rapidly expanding government censorship. Panelists: Nataliya Rostova, Senior Correspondent, Slon.ru Elizaveta Osetinskaya, Editor-in-chief, Forbes Magazine, Russian Edition Ivan Ninenko, Deputy Director, Transparency International - Russia; Co-anchor TV program "Corruption on the Rain" Svetlana Reiter, Freelance Journalist and 2013 Paul Klebnikov Fund Fellow Elena Milashina Investigative Journalist, Novaya Gazeta Moderator: Kimberly Marten (Acting Director, Harriman Institute and Professor of Political Science, Barnard College) Co-sponsored by the Havighurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies at Miami University and the Kennan Institute.

Moderated by Gergely Romsics of the Hungarian Cultural Center and with an introduction by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Co-sponsored by the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and the Hungarian Cultural Center. Hungarian Imre Kertész was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2002 for “writing that upholds the fragile experience of the individual against the barbaric arbitrariness of history.” His conversation with literary historian Thomas Cooper that is presented here speaks specifically to this relationship between the personal and the historical. In The Holocaust as Culture,Kertész recalls his childhood in Buchenwald and Auschwitz and as a writer living under the so-called soft dictatorship of communist Hungary. Reflecting on his experiences of the Holocaust and the Soviet occupation of Hungary following World War II, Kertész likens the ideological machinery of National Socialism to the oppressive routines of life under communism. He also discusses the complex publication history of Fateless, his acclaimed novel about the experiences of a Hungarian child deported to Auschwitz, and the lack of interest with which it was initially met in Hungary due to its failure to conform to the communist government’s simplistic history of the relationship between Nazi occupiers and communist liberators. The underlying theme in the dialogue between Kertész and Cooper is the difficulty of mediating the past and creating models for interpreting history, and how this challenges ideas of self. The title The Holocaust as Culture is taken from that of a talk Kertész gave in Vienna for a symposium on the life and works of Jean Améry. That essay is included here, and it reflects on Améry’s fear that history would all too quickly forget the fates of the victims of the concentration camps. Combined with an introduction by Thomas Cooper, the thoughts gathered here reveal Kertész’s views on the lengthening shadow of the Holocaust as an ever-present part of the world’s cultural memory and his idea of the crucial functions of literature and art as the vessels of this memory.

Presentations by Marketa Goetz-Stankiewicz, Paul Wilson, Ambassador Martin Palous, Jiri Pehe and Petr Pithart. Organized by the Harriman Institute at Columbia University.

Presentations by Marketa Goetz-Stankiewicz, Paul Wilson, Ambassador Martin Palous, Jiri Pehe and Petr Pithart. Organized by the Harriman Institute at Columbia University.

Presentations by Marketa Goetz-Stankiewicz, Paul Wilson, Ambassador Martin Palous, Jiri Pehe and Petr Pithart. Organized by the Harriman Institute at Columbia University.