Podcasts about international peace

This week we're traveling around the region, moving from the Red Sea to the Balkans.While the Iran war has disrupted energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, the world's attention shifted to another major global chokepoint at the mouth of the Red Sea this past week, the Bab-el Mandeb Strait, as Iran-backed Houthi rebels tighten their grip over this strategic maritime route and threaten Saudi Arabia's oil exports.With the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-el Mandeb Strait under threat, the world is bracing for a potential squeeze on oil prices, while the US appears to be sitting this one out, so far declining to intervene on Saudi Arabia's behalf.The Houthi attacks are also the first test for the new Mecca Agreement, the defense pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. While all eyes are on the Red Sea, tensions have been quietly brewing in the Aegean, where Turkey is once again ramping up its provocations. We've seen Turkey engage in new airspace violations, provoke with the announcement of controversial marine parks, slam Greece's recent defense deal with Israel as an attempt to “encircle” Turkey, and this week Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan absurdly called Greece's defense of its Aegean islands a “threat”.Looking to Greece's north, the Western Balkans are coming under the spotlight again after Serbia's President Alexandar Vucic, who has been in power as ‌president or prime minister for 12 years, dissolved parliament and called for snap elections in October. Serbia has been rocked by student-led protests and political turmoil over the last two years, and demands for accountability and change are widespread. This is also raising questions about the EU's commitment to fully integrate the Western Balkans, an effort that has lost momentum over the past years. Could this be an opportunity to use its leverage to promote reform and the resolution of bilateral issues? Some experts think it may be.Aaron David Miller, Constantinos Filis, and James Ker-Lindsay join Thanos Davelis this week as we look into all of these developments, exploring what they mean for Greece and the wider region.A little more info on our guests:Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and expert on the Middle East.Constantinos Filis is an associate professor at the American College of Greece and director of its Institute of Global Affairs.Professor James Ker-Lindsay is an expert on the EU, the Balkans, and Southeast Europe.You can support The Greek Current by joining HALC as a member here.

What the hell is happening with U.S. defense technology? Chris Brose, the President and Chief Strategy Officer of defense tech firm Anduril joins us to talk about how private defense companies are innovating and revolutionizing American national security, America's lousy defense acquisition habits, and what we can learn from Ukraine and the war with Iran. The traditional US defense industrial base is slowly cranking out exquisite and outdated weapons. If things don't change, we risk losing a war to China. We discuss the crucial shift towards technological advancement, what the Pentagon and Congress must do, and what this means long term for the safety and security of the American people.Chris Brose is President and Chief Strategy Officer of Anduril Industries, a venture-backed defense technology company. He is the author of The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare (2020) and formerly senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From 2014-2018, he was the staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee supporting then Chairman John McCain. From 2009-2014, Mr. Brose served as senior policy advisor to Senator John McCain, and from 2008-2009, he was senior editor of Foreign Policy. From 2005-2008, he served as policy advisor and chief speechwriter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and began his career in government as a speechwriter for Secretary of State Colin Powell, from 2004-2005.Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

More than 80% of the world's advanced AI compute is concentrated in the US and China. For Europe and other middle powers, the question may no longer be how to win the AI race, but how to avoid becoming dangerously dependent on those that do.This week on Cleaning Up, James Cameron, Chair of Cleaning Up's Editorial Council, takes over as guest host. He speaks with Sam Winter-Levy, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Afonso Salema, CEO of Exus Digital and founder of TerraByte Data Centers, about how compute is becoming a strategic resource.They explore how access to power and the grid is shaping where billions of dollars of AI infrastructure gets built, and how data centres could become a source of geopolitical leverage. They also discuss the security and public backlash facing this critical infrastructure, and whether AI's enormous appetite for electricity could ultimately accelerate the clean energy transition.Topics covered in this episode:Compute as a strategic resourceThe US-China race for AIWhy Europe is falling behindAI's rapidly growing electricity demandWhere the world builds data centresProtecting data centres from attackWeaponising chips and AI accessThe political backlash against data centresCan AI accelerate clean energy?Leadership Circle:Cleaning Up is proud to be supported by its Leadership Circle. The members are Actis, Alcazar Energy, Arup, Climate Imperative Foundation, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Cygnum Capital, Davidson Kempner, EcoPragma Capital, EDP, Eurelectric, KKR, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, National Grid, Octopus Energy, Quadrature Climate Foundation, Schneider Electric, SDCL and Wärtsilä. For more information on the Leadership Circle, please visit cleaningup.live.Links:Afonso Salema's bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/afonso-salema-336320/Sam Winter-Levy's bio: https://carnegieendowment.org/people/sam-winter-levyJames Cameron's bio: https://www.james-cameron.co.uk/bioCleaning Up 235. Inside Start Campus, Europe's largest data centre: https://youtu.be/juAyLAUmU3wJames Cameron on Cleaning Up in 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn7GKiW5E4kJames Cameron on Cleaning Up in 2025: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPPjAbSxl5cSubscribe to our newsletter: https://cleaninguppod.substack.com/The Stanford 2026 AI index: https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2026-ai-index-reportEdelman Trust in AI poll: https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer/report-tech-sectorAcronyms:AWS: Amazon Web ServicesNIMBY: "Not In My Back Yard"Chapters:00:00 Introduction02:02 AI, security, geopolitics05:01 Compute as power11:34 The global AI race14:07 Building data centres18:02 Defending critical infrastructure23:53 Who pays for security?29:24 Designing for resilience32:48 Weaponising AI access40:02 Data centre backlash49:56 The balance of power54:09 Can Europe catch up?59:43 AI and clean energy01:04:01 Outro

America is waking up to the critical risks posed by artificial intelligence. But every conversation about possible regulation tends to hit the same wall: “Well, what about China?”Chinese A.I. models are just slightly behind American ones. If America slows down its A.I. development to make our models safer, the fear is that China will simply race ahead of us and own this critical technology of the future — with A.I. models that are less safe than our own. So how should the United States respond to this prisoner's dilemma? And is it possible that the two countries leading the A.I. race could actually strike a deal? Matt Sheehan is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He's been closely following the A.I. debate in China, and how China's been interpreting the A.I. debate here. And he's working to try to lay a foundation for future coordination between the two countries. He's the author of a newsletter under his name and the 2019 book “The Transpacific Experiment: How China and California Collaborate and Compete for Our Future.”This conversation was recorded on Sept. 10.Mentioned:“The Adolescence of Technology” by Dario AmodeiBook Recommendations:“Country Driving” by Peter Hessler“From the Soil” by Fei Xiaotong“On Beauty” by Zadie SmithThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find the transcript and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.htmlThis episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rollin Hu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, with Julie Beer. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld, with additional mixing by Isaac Jones, Aman Sahota and Gautam Srikishan. Our recording engineer is Aman Sahota. Cinematography by Marina King and Kyle Kelley. Video editing by Steph Khoury, Brandon Belk-Yee and Julian Hackney. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Marie Cascione, Annie Galvin, Kristin Lin, Emma Kehlbeck, Jack McCordick and Jan Kobal. Original music by Pat McCusker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times Opinion Shows is Annie-Rose Strasser. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Amazon Music. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeBerny Belvedere: Renée DiResta, thanks for joining us on Zooming In, our flagship podcast here at The UnPopulist. You've been on before a couple of times. You've done podcasts with us, you've spoken at LibCon—in fact, during our first LibCon, LibCon 2024, your book generated intense interest. It seemed to be the book of the summer. You remember that?Renée DiResta: I do, thanks so much.Belvedere: It felt like at every other session, some panelist would say something like, “and to explore this further, I really recommend Renée DiResta's new book, which is just wonderful.” Right? I don't know why I did that in a nerd voice. Your endorsers are wonderful people.But Renée, welcome again. I want to dive right in. You have a new report out. It's put out by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It was written by you and two co-authors, Rachel Kleinfeld and Margot Treadwell. That's a powerful lineup. We've run Rachel's work in our pages before and it's top notch. The report is fantastic. It did not disappoint. For anyone interested in how the broader world of news and opinion discourse works today, it's immediately one of the most useful resources to pick up. And it's especially useful for practitioners, for people who work in the space, like we do.But to help with some scene setting, can you tell us about the report in broad brushstrokes? We'll then narrow in from there.DiResta: So I think about this as report part two. Last year, in September, almost one year to the day, we put out a provocation saying: “institutions need to change how they communicate in order to compete in the new media environment.” And we wrote a framing on why that was, on how social media was no longer this niche thing that those people over there did. If you wanted to reach the public, this is where people are—and you have to reach them where they are and in a manner that they find appealing. The way that you communicate is just different now.That attracted a lot of attention and it got us a ton of inbound, particularly from philanthropy, because we were also telling philanthropists you have to change how you think about outputs and outcomes that matter. For a lot of academics and others, participation in the public conversation is, if not discouraged, it's not really encouraged. It doesn't move the needle for your tenure committee, that sort of thing. How could philanthropists shift the thinking on why communicating to the public actually was critical? We got a ton of inbound on it and the question we got most often was: “How?”This report is the how. The basic premise is that most Americans now get their information and form their opinions through creators, podcasts, Substacks, group chats. Most traditional institutions have only minimal engagement or presence in those spaces. So that ecosystem runs on a very different model of legitimacy. People are following people, not institutions. They're following people that they find appealing or relatable. Somebody coming to you from their kitchen. Credentials and institutional polish actually can read as almost a sort of distance now.Those are the elites saying that stuff from over there, whereas this person is just talking to me in their kitchen. They're real.We write about how fact-based institutions have often thought about this shift to social as a repackaging job. “All right, how do I take my massive PDF”—and, by the way, this report is a massive PDF—“how do I take that and put out a couple screenshots on social media or generate a reel?” They see it more as engaging when you have something to release, when you have just put something out. So it's very self-serving. They're not using social media as a communicator in an ongoing conversation where they're having a back and forth with their audience. They're using it as a broadcast tool and they're reformulating the thing that they wanted to broadcast into a format that nominally works but is missing that dialogue.So our guide argues that it's a strategy problem—and that CEOs and boards have to own this. They have to think about it, not as the thing that happens after you've done your work, but as an active part of your ongoing relationship to the public. We framed the report as a series of questions to guide that thinking. We did a bunch of case studies, really spanning the communication ecosystem we have. How Jon Haidt turned some of his work into a movement. We have how Turning Point became a juggernaut. We have some of the Mamdani campaign stuff. Not endorsing any position there—but saying, “here's some interesting stuff that you can learn from how this group strategically chose to engage the public through these means.”Belvedere: I thought the guide did a really great job of bringing in real world examples. You also brought up David French and the reception he received. His case is a fascinating one because of what it represents and what it says about the subcommunity that he had that parting of the ways with, and the way they gate-kept him from continued access to it.But I want to pick up on something that you mentioned in passing just now in your broad overview. There's a line in the report that really struck me as I was reading it. As you put it, credentials and institutional polish—the CV virtues—now read as distance and disconnect rather than authority, which is what it used to read as. Do you think that's a permanent rewiring of how trust just works now?DiResta: It's an interesting question. Trust and authoritativeness are distinct. You trust your neighbor without necessarily thinking they're an authority. You just find them a trustworthy person. You would give them your keys. They can feed your dog, that sort of thing. And it doesn't matter what they do or what their professional credentials are. What matters is just that you have a relationship. You feel that this person is somebody who would support you if you need it, that they're going to level with you. They're going to tell you the truth, even if you might not want to hear it.That's the idea of trust as something that is deeper than expertise. Sure, it goes hand in hand with it at times. We would like it to be tightly coupled. We want people to trust experts, but the idea of relatability instead is: “Why would this person who seems just like me lie to me? Why would they deceive me? What do they get out of it?” Whereas people sincerely believe that elite institutions are working to serve their own agenda, and that is often seen as being at odds with the average, everyday person. You see this in politics when people ask, “Why is this politician talking about this thing, performing this action, when I just care about putting food on the table for my family?” You see that gap in what lands and resonates with people versus what people in elite or institutional positions want to talk about.Sometimes this is a disconnect that gets lamented in liberal spaces, particularly as, “well, if only they listened, they would understand that my policy proposal for this thing does help them 10 degrees and five years later.” But in the immediate here and now, it's that question of: Do I trust the person who's speaking to me? Do they seem just like me?I had this experience when I was a new mom. I was one of the first in my friend group to have kids. I didn't know what to do. I was living across the country from my family and didn't have much support. So I turned to the internet, right? Who are the people who are going to help me understand what I'm supposed to do with this baby? How do I make him sleep? How do I make him eat? How do I not screw this up? I think it's a very personal experience that a lot of people have where that sense that reading a PDF on an institutional website is not the same thing as somebody sitting there with you taking the time. There's a phrase that I think it was Jeff Jarvis who once said to me in conversation: “the media talks to the public and the influencers talk with them.”I think that's the best framing I've heard for that. Content creators understand how to talk with their audiences, where even people who may have better information, more expertise, authoritative content, are not necessarily communicating that in a way that feels real and connects to a sense that this person is telling me the truth.Belvedere: I'm wondering what's the right read on this broad question of trust that we're all grappling with. Take, for example, the aftershocks from a specific high profile instance of trust collapse—something like Covid. I think Covid's a really instructive episode in many different ways. There's been a lot of revisionism about it. What was different about Covid compared to other past trying moments in society is that Covid became politicized in a particular way by an extremely potent right-wing discourse-shaping machine. That's not going to stop being in place.“A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them.” — Renée DiRestaSo my overriding fear is that Covid is not an outlier. And that anything in society like Covid that requires elite management, whether it's the dissemination of information, policies that help curb some of the worst effects of not abiding by certain standards, all of that is going to run up against an information machine architecturally designed to demagogue that issue, to create a trust collapse, to point out any little mistakes and amplify them as though they're an example of the elites just completely botching everything. Is there any hope that that wanes?DiResta: That's a very interesting question—let me give you a couple of answers.Two things were true about Covid. I was writing about this in The Atlantic during the pandemic: the institutional communicators really dropped the ball—in my opinion, but I think that's been quite backed up at this point. I remember writing that it would be nice to see the CDC's website look more like Wikipedia, where you can see the change log, the public can understand in this fast moving situation—you can go back and read the edit history, you can see who made the change, you can understand how consensus forms in a scientific community. Because there's such a time lag, right? They are waiting until they are absolutely, 100% sure before they say something. In that time, the people are still looking for information, and they're going to get it from whoever is willing to give it to them. On social media, there's an incentive structure: if you're first, you get rewarded; if you're sensational, you get rewarded. If you're right? That doesn't really matter. Maybe you'll get a Community Note, maybe a fact check, but that's not really the point. The point is: Are you first, are you relatable, do you seem authentic, can your stuff go viral? It's a very different communication style and game.So the first thing that was true is that the institutions dropped the ball in comms during Covid communications. And I was writing about it as it happened, because my job was to study social media rumors and narratives around the vaccine. I was like: “Come on, guys! You gotta get in the game here! You're not going to content-moderate this out of existence—that's just not how it works. You're going to turn this into forbidden knowledge.” We did everything we possibly could to try to systematically change that. And the people who did respond were the first-person speakers who began to emerge: physicians. You saw doctors working shifts at Bellevue doing live updates about the morgue trucks—those were the people who managed to break through, because they had the credentials, but they were also able to say very directly to the public: this is the truth, this is what you need to know, Covid is real, even as the institutions weren't doing that.But the second thing that's true is that, as you note, the failures, flaws, and missteps get immediately weaponized. That turns into: “you can't trust those people, they didn't tell you the truth then, never forget what they did to us.” That rhetoric isn't really about finding truth, or understanding a novel pathogen, or whether a vaccine works—remember, this was the first time one had ever been rolled out in an emergency setting. It turns into: “here's why you can never trust those people, and you can only trust me.”That got reinforced through litigation. They lost all their court cases, but they still sued people who tried to deal with the falsehoods and misleading content, and any effort to label it or fact-check it got reframed as censorship. It was really wild to see what that machine juggernaut managed to do to reinforce that only it was going to tell its base the truth, and they couldn't trust anything on the outside. That's the kind of rhetoric you usually see from cults—“you can't trust anybody but me.” It's a very different style of communication, and I found it personally alarming to see it happen in the context of a pandemic, because it has serious downstream consequences.Belvedere: Yeah, and I mean, think about the way you just described that—an informational cult kind of environment, scaled up to half the country, or at least to a large share of people getting their news from less-than-ideal sources. I think it's going to continue to be a problem.DiResta: Let me follow up on that quickly. I spent about [six months] watching the vaccine rollout—February through August of 2021, as Operation Warp Speed rolled out. I watched what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other long-standing—just to be clear, long-standing—anti-vaccine activists did. These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, “this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.” And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. “This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.” And now we have kids dying of measles.That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.Belvedere: I want to stay on this, because I think we're all trying to figure out the right posture here. You bring up Joe Rogan and his effect on psychedelics policy: a lot of people know him through segments where he talks through his drug trips, or a guest's. Or, another example: online creators helping speed up the end of USAID. And there are other cases. But these are cases where influence and factual accuracy are completely decoupled. For organizations whose whole value proposition is getting reality right, being accurate—a lot of people in these spaces ask a question that is one neighborhood down but the same city: “Where's the liberal answer to Joe Rogan?” We've been asking that question since the post-mortem on 2024, and even before. A lot of our institutions feel saddled by the sense that in order to compete on reach, in this new marketplace of ideas, we can't really compete on accuracy's terms.Roger Ailes created Fox News in the '90s. It wasn't [presented] as a dominant player—it was a countervailing force: “the media is captured, so we're going to bring balance back.” “Fair and balanced”—that whole thing; a whole alternative institution positioned against the media itself. So [this side] has had an insurgent mindset from the start—Rush Limbaugh and others. I've brought this up a lot. Even the Ailes project, Fox News, it had institutional trappings, institutional clothing, but it really had this insurgent energy, whatever it said about itself early on. That posture was able to scale beautifully once podcasting, YouTube, and the internet more broadly made these tools available. It was disintermediation. People like Ben Shapiro with The Daily Wire, Charlie Kirk, really ran with the ball a lot better in these spaces, it seemed like. It never felt like liberals had their own Ailes moment, because it felt like they were fine with The New York Times and The Atlantic.Is the real gap here about talent, effort, and ability, or just needing to catch up after playing behind for so long? Or is it more that this is a different language, that [that side] can easily and naturally slot into, and for us it has to be more performative, a little contrived—like a theater kid having to learn how to act?DiResta: It's funny—there's so much in what you're saying there. First, when you can position yourself oppositionally—“we're the underdog, we're David, they're Goliath”—that's an archetype, a story everybody knows, that people immediately understand where you're positioning yourself. “They are all telling you the same thing”; “that is a monolith, that's the state propaganda machine manufacturing consent, we're the plucky little outlet trying to break through.” And then, of course, they maintain that outsider branding and status even as their audience becomes massive—quite a lot larger, in fact, than some of that so-called establishment media.You see this with a phrase that comes out of QAnon: “we are the media now.” What they're saying is: “we can break through, we can make stuff trend, we can make stuff go viral, we can take our (in the context of QAnon, I think it's fair to say) crackpot ideas and put them out there, get them seen, get them part of the discourse, and then people have to pay attention to us.” That's where “we are the media now” comes from. It was popularized by Elon, because he picked up that phrase and it is so much in the ether on X—I don't even know if he understands the provenance. But “we are the media now” becomes the idea that we're the opposition now, and all that legacy stuff—including Fox, mind you, which is legacy too—is old. You actually see the schisms now, especially since they're in power everywhere on the right: influencers going to war with Fox News.“I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.” — Renée DiRestaVenkatesh Rao wrote about this in “The Internet of Beefs”—one of the most astute assessments of how social media works, in my opinion. If you have conflict, that's fantastic: it benefits both parties, gets both parties attention, and there's no incentive to actually win the conflict, because the conflict itself is like a soap opera—it just keeps going. That's where you start to see right-wing influencers say, “Fox News is establishment, Bush-era media, and we'll tell you the truth—on social, on our platforms, on our streams, on our podcasts.” That's where you start to see that shift.There's also something Rachel and I wrote about in the first report: institutional and academic speakers are media-trained for a very different world, where you get a three- to five-minute segment. If you've never done TV before, they tell you roughly what you'll be asked, you prepare your talking points in advance because you have so little time, you deliver the soundbite, and the segment's over. That's completely different from what I experienced doing Rogan in 2019—a two-and-a-half-hour conversation with no prep. I'm going to be there and you either know your stuff or you don't. His audience either likes me or it doesn't. Half of them hated me!And that's fine—it is what it is. I showed up for a reason. There's a completely different vernacular, style, and approach when you're having a two-hour conversation with somebody, where you're going to listen to what they have to say, and you're responding back much more as a human than as a person who's there to digest for the public, in a three-minute hit, what you said in that report over there or what happened in the world and why you, the expert, with your credentials and your chyron should think about it. It's a completely different experience.So does it go back to the old way? I don't think it does—I haven't thought that for the better part of 10 years now. I started writing about the anti-vaccine movement in 2015, as a mom, saying: “I have got to say something about this.” What became MAHA is now a political movement that sits in power at HHS. What they understood was that empathy and relatability, the feeling that they are talking with you, matters so much more than a PDF or an academic paper that sits behind a paywall that nobody can read without an academic library license. That's not going back to normal. So the question that's motivated me and Rachel is: How do you teach people who do have the knowledge and the skill set to compete differently?Belvedere: On that note, on liberals' broad failure to penetrate a lot of these spaces, these subcommunities, these niche places where people gather … think about all the subcultures we have in the United States—there are plenty that liberals are just really poor at reaching, or at having any presence within at all.DiResta: I'm an independent. My complaint is about how liberals communicate versus how conservatives communicate. I spend a lot of time in both ecosystems, in person, and I try to engage with the media apparatus on the right too, partly because they make up conspiracy theories about me, so I feel like I have to. But there's a difference in how carefully you have to think through what you're about to say—what performance are you putting on in that moment? Conservatives use the word “based”—you're talking in a way that's almost intentionally provocative at times, and sometimes it goes way off the rails; sometimes it's not good at all. But there's a sense that when you're hearing from the liberal establishment, you're hearing qualifiers—everything is qualified.This is something I used to talk about when making content: on Instagram Reels, you've got three seconds to hook your audience. If you start with a qualifier about how what you're saying doesn't necessarily apply to all people, in all places, at all times, you're done—that took three seconds, that's it, we're done. So the question is: How do you get comfortable either owning an opinion unapologetically, or framing it in a way where you're just like, “yeah, whatever, somebody on the internet is always going to yell at me, I don't care, I'm going to say the thing anyway”? That's a limitation I just don't see in conservative spaces.Again, that means things can go way off the rails, and some of it is genuinely not good. But the flip side is that [liberal content] can sound stilted, practiced, polished. And the incentive structure is scary for the participant—for the academic who decides to try being more casual in their presentation. I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.What I've loved over the last few years since Covid is watching public health experts and epidemiologists start presenting as themselves: “here I am, I've got this expertise, and I'm also going to tell you about my kids, or this dress I bought, or this thing I did.” It makes them more relatable, more human—because they are, in fact, relatable and human. It's not an artifice. But they understand that doing this actually helps establish their credibility, more than just the credential. So if me saying a curse word on Twitter … normal people curse on Twitter.Belvedere: And not to be too cynical about it, but this is something intuitively understood by people on the wrong side of things. Trump will have a word randomly capitalized as a marker of his style, and without it, the message would feel too polished—even though, grammatically, it would be correct.One reaction people sometimes have to a discussion like this is: “all you're talking about is communication, this is social media stuff, it's more fluff than substance.” I think that couldn't be more wrong, because if we care about the issues we're writing about, if we want action taken on them …DiResta: Yes! It is a persuasive process.Belvedere: … if we want people to care about authoritarianism or corruption in government, raising the salience of those issues becomes really important. If we're collectively bad at it, if we don't have the “juice” that the other side does, our issues stay dormant, untouched, unlistened to, uncared about, while the other side's issues will be front and center, driving the conversation. You talk about issue salience needing to travel across networks before it becomes a thing. Could you unpack that? You've got multiple creators, adjacent communities … help us understand how that works.DiResta: So, often times, when you open your social media feed—whatever ranked platform you use, which is almost all of them—you're seeing what the platform has decided is important for you, and that's not the same as what's important to the person sitting next to you on the train. So you innately think a lot of people care about something, or are talking about something, when it turns out—take X as an example: you log in, there's a “trends” feature, and it'll surface a trend when there are maybe 200 posts about something. That's not a trend in any national sense; it's basically the platform tweaking a small number of people who'll respond to it. They see it and think, “there are 2,000 posts about this, I care a lot about that thing, I'm going to add my voice, retweet it, reshare it”—and if a sufficient number of people do that, it gets bigger, and eventually it shows up on something like a mass-movement leaderboard.I spent five years at the Stanford Internet Observatory taking a network-science approach to this. Let me give a specific example—we can stick with the pandemic, because I think it's quite important as a case study. I don't know how many people remember the Plandemic video. It featured Judy Mikovits, a woman with serious credential issues and at least one retracted paper, who'd had a series of dramatic career incidents that led to her being put into the autism-conference crankosphere. She was releasing a book and doing a lot of book promo, but she was never especially polished doing those direct engagements herself. The director, Mikki Willis, made the video—kept her on task, shot it very strategically. It's about 20 minutes long, and it argues that the pandemic is being used to keep people from “healing microbes on the beach,” and that's why they are locking down beaches, and so on—a very conspiratorial film.Now Mikovits had been saying these things on prior podcasts for a while, but it stayed confined; it got almost no reach outside the anti-vaccine networks, where that kind of content is normal and expected. What was different about Plandemic is that because of the polish, the packaging, the formatting, and Willis's own reach and network, it hopped out of the anti-vaccine ecosystem and started landing everywhere. We had a tool called CrowdTangle that let us pull where URLs were winding up and being shared, and the Plandemic link was showing up in the Corgi Club, the Beach Club, local school-board groups—everywhere. We could only see public data, so I'd imagine that's just the tip of the iceberg.The public really found it compelling. Reading the comments as part of that analysis, people were saying things like: “she seems so authoritative, she has this personal beef with Anthony Fauci, who I've also been hearing is untrustworthy; they are keeping us locked down in our houses, why is that happening?” It really landed and resonated. That's an actual moment where normally this speakers and those topics stay confined to a very specific niche part of the internet, with this video, they managed to absolutely blew out of the water. Here is how it works when you take something and you frame somebody in the right way, you make them seem relatable and resonant and you edit the content in a very compelling, exciting, and mysterious way. This is how you create a mass conversation about something. Ordinarily this person would have stayed confined to her niche, but in that particular moment, with that particular piece of content, they nailed it.Belvedere: I asked about that because on our side, we're trying to do some of the same work you're outlining. ISMA puts out LibCon and The UnPopulist—The UnPopulist is our flagship publication, LibCon is the conference series that we put out. The UnPopulist has buy-in from figures across the ideological spectrum; and the whole model of ISMA is to build a coalition—a realignment of liberal versus illiberal—and for us to be on that liberal side, spanning classical liberals, center-left, and center-right: people who are single-issue defectors, who have enough qualms with the authoritarianism we're seeing that they come over to our side. At our last LibCon, we had C-SPAN in the same room as a bunch of streamers broadcasting. It was an interesting mix, and that's the sort of work we're trying to do. As I said earlier, though, it's not necessarily the language that's easy for a lot of liberals to speak—it takes intentional partnerships, looking through different content forms, finding where a good ally or partner can be found.“These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, ‘this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.' And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. ‘This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.' And now we have kids dying of measles. That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.” — Renée DiRestaIt used to be that an organization could get away with just publishing a headline, an article image, and letting the feed auto-populate. Now every platform, the whole online space, requires more thoughtfulness, more intentionality, more strategic thinking. At the risk of asking for a One Neat Trick: is there one thing that, if a capacity developed overnight, would be a game changer for us on this path that we want to take—to be better communicators, to help the issues we care about get that amplification and resonance?DiResta: I think it is that co-creation and that incorporation of people who are innately good and talented at this. I was at LibCon this year with Whick and Soypill, two of the streamers who were there, because the first night of the conference happened to be the night Trump gave that speech about the election being rigged by China. As it happens, I have a lot of experience looking at Chinese influence operations around the 2020 election, so I'd been on Whick's stream before, and he asked if I wanted to come on. I said let's do it, and we broke it down live for the audience—here's what Trump's saying, here's a Georgetown professor who can help explain it—but done conversationally. It's funny, because you still carry that credential with you; you're still saying, “here's how I know this stuff.” And, of course, later on I'm going to write about this for Lawfare, I'm going to write about it on my Substack, I'm going to put it out as personal content. But in this moment the most impactful thing I think I can do is discuss it live with people who are watching it in a community, trying to make sense of it together. That's something streamers in particular are very good at—they bring people together to watch jointly.I don't know how many people have watched a Destiny stream, or, on the other side of the spectrum, a Hasan Piker stream, but it's the same appeal: people who are in a community, like-minded, enjoying that back-and-forth, not only listening to the streamer but participating in the community itself. It reminds me of being in New York in my 20s, gathering at someone's house to watch TV together on a Sunday night—that feeling of experiencing something together, reacting to it together. When you watch a news broadcast by yourself, it's not like that. When you're watching a stream, there's as much back-and-forth and community-building happening among the audience as there is between the audience and the influencer or streamer. That creates a feeling of belonging and participation, and when you want to ask people to take political action, there's a feeling that we're all in this together, we all want to see this thing accomplished. You see this when you watch political streamers across the spectrum doing fundraisers and things like that—“how can we galvanize and generate momentum?”This isn't limited to partisan politics—you can do the same with issue-based advocacy as well.One of the reasons institutions [struggle here] is a fear of relinquishing control. A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them like you would brief media: “here's your embargoed copy of my report, I'd love it if you talked about it, no pressure, no requirements, this is just me providing you with information about something we've done that I think your audience might care about—and then wherever it goes, goes.”Belvedere: And as you note in the report, this is already the cultural air a lot of these younger staffers breathe—they have to code-switch to seem more “professional,” to be someone who …DiResta: … doesn't curse on Twitter.Belvedere: Exactly. But that also gives them the advantage of understanding the discourse, the environment, the information landscape, far more natively. So they can put a message that the CEO might want in a way that will have more effectiveness.I want to bring up two of the case studies I found fascinating—David French and Zohran Mamdani. David French was trying to bring a [pluralist], depoliticized message into a very hostile, ideologically policed, polarized evangelical base. Zohran Mamdani, now the mayor of New York, built his campaign almost entirely on vibes, aesthetics, joy—messaging, sure, but messaging that met people where they were and responded to what they actually needed. One of those approaches got crushed by the gatekeepers; the other was able to bypass them. It's not that one was effective and the other wasn't—David French ran up against a buzzsaw that no Christian thinker, however winsome or articulate, probably would have fared well against. Mamdani certainly was very skilled in how he approached his campaign and carried it out. In these two profiles, is there a lesson there about why one got crushed and the other persevered?DiResta: It's very interesting, and I've thought about this a lot. So, first, some of it is: How heavy a hold does the establishment party have on the space you're speaking into? Are you entering fresh ground? Mamdani, of course, ran against an egregiously terrible establishment candidate. I mean, it was one of those “is this really the best we've got to offer?”Mamdani's politics weren't mine, but I'm from New York—I lived there for 30 years, still have a house and family in Brooklyn—and I watched that race, and I just thought … every time I saw Mamdani content in my feed, and there was a lot of it, because I'm still plugged into New York, I was like, “this is so inspiring. This is a person where that love of the city comes through.” I remember he did a thing with a bodega cat. I had a bodega cat, and it was amazing! In a way, the politics and the policy was almost secondary to the feeling that you were watching something genuine.The candidate he was running against—well, there were two, of course, including Curtis Sliwa, who really nailed it on the “genuine” front. I mean, my God, that man gave interviews that left my jaw on the floor—where he's like, “here's how they're trying to pay me to drop out of the race, let's talk about that.” It's a very New York political moment.Belvedere: Zero filter.DiResta: Oh, no filter. I mean, Cuomo doesn't lack a filter either. I'm New York Italian too—you know that. Someone should send him to his dean!It was wild watching that race and seeing what landed with the public. There was such a sense of “God, we need something new! We just need something new”—and that landed, I think, in a way, more than anything else, regardless of your opinions on specific policies. It was the way in which he turned people who found him personally appealing into organizers—fans became organizers. That's really the story of the Mamdani campaign. With French, by contrast, top-down control still held much more strongly. I don't think many New Yorkers love the Democratic Party establishment enough to say, “we really need to listen to what they tell us”—if anything, an official endorsement had become a bit of a negative signal by that point. That's at least how I experienced New York politics.Mamdani was also an unknown quantity, French was much more of a known quantity, so he had this experience of gatekeepers who used character assassination to attack, not so much his ideas as his person—finding things he'd said or done previously and using them to attack him personally and make it costly to associate with him and his ideas by extension. Once an establishment is well-networked enough to mount that kind of opposition, it's much harder to win. French was moving into a hostile, contested, polarized space. Mamdani, by contrast, faced an establishment, in his case the more centrist wing of the Democratic Party, that simply didn't have the social media clout or networks to make its attacks land. It was a very different dynamic.That's why we put French in a section of the report about figuring out what kind of space you're actually trying to participate in. Are you putting forward a policy or a vision that's going to be actively and adversarially rebuffed by very entrenched, well-networked forces? Or are you moving into a much fresher space—a new issue, a new take, less contested ground—where you are potentially going to run a very different kind of strategy?Belvedere: I think that's a great point. Trump is a good example in the political space—the GOP establishment was set against him initially. They had money behind other candidates, Jeb Bush chief among them, and had a war chest that was insane backing Jeb Bush. And that was … nothing in the end. It didn't amount to anything. All the work French had done in the past, caring about the Bill of Rights, about a constitutionally constrained vision of limited government—the intellectual energy the Republican Party used to draw on more heavily—had given way to something else. David went a different direction than a lot of evangelicals did, and there are enough of them to effectively block him now.Whereas Mamdani, I think, was able to bypass a lot of that resistance because there was more overlap with what a standard Democratic candidate might have offered—a lot of the same campaign substance, just a different approach on some issues. There were enough people who weren't already set against him. That's unlike the evangelical space, where mentioning French's name is practically like saying “Voldemort.” Which is sad, because on a lot of issues, especially theological tenets, there's still broad alignment between them.This is something that your report presses people to internalize: the idea that who you're speaking to matters, and how you're speaking to them matters. That's a lesson a lot of liberals still need to work out. There's a lot of trial and error right now, a lot of figuring out how to be effective in this new information landscape. But the report is genuinely helpful. I imagine a lot of people will read it and think: “okay, everything I thought I knew about what it takes to project credibility has been turned on its head, and I need to account for that or risk being left behind.” That's what makes it such an important read.DiResta: Thank you. We really tried to make it as tangible as possible—which is why it's long. We went back and forth at the end about whether to release different versions for different audiences: a philanthropist version, a C-suite version, a version for op-ed writers. In the end we put it all out as one document—you can always Control-F to find what's most relevant to you, there's an index, and AI can digest it too.But, in all seriousness, though, there has to be a shift. You mentioned Trump. His energy came from the internet. He was so good at tapping into … because he was almost a meme candidate at first; people didn't quite believe he'd be a serious thing. This was right around the time … I bring up Gamergate not for its specifics, but because it was a moment when people started realizing the internet could actually affect the real world. The Arab Spring was another one of those moments—realizing that people's voices online could genuinely accomplish things.“When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. ‘Damn, we are the media now'—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change. That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: ‘we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.' Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—'this is a movement, and you're part of it.'” — Renée DiRestaYou mentioned my book. I'll give a shameless plug here—but only because the paperback just came out and it has a new epilogue. If you bought the Kindle version, go refresh it, because the new epilogue gets into exactly this. What was the appeal of DOGE? It was that the government was going to be transformed—that's great, it's a huge incentive for people who cared about that. Even liberals were like, “Maybe it's time to shake some stuff up.” But what DOGE did for the public, particularly Trump's base and Elon's base, was this: they'd tweet out some grant they found ridiculous, often with no real idea what it actually did, and Elon would respond with something like “killed,” “nuked,” “through the wood chipper,” about USAID.Belvedere: And a lot of those actually got Community-Noted on themselves—people pointing out that he was egregiously misreading the grant. They got fact-checked by their own system.DiResta: They did—but it didn't actually matter, because what mattered to the people participating was: “I said a thing, somebody powerful listened to me, and then a change happened.” When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. “Damn, we are the media now”—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change.That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: “we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.” Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—“this is a movement, and you're part of it.” That's the same thing Trump tapped into online back in 2015: “we're going to change things, this is your movement, and I'm going to accomplish this for you.” Which can go off in some weird ways, when you look at exclusionary populism and authoritarianism, which you guys at ISMA focus so much on.I want to mention one more thing. In San Francisco, we recalled the school board: a very local, niche race that ended up becoming a story of national attention, for the same reason—people saying, “we've got to change something, what can we do?” The groups that grew out of that were advancing a very liberal policy—this was not the far-left, not the far-right doing it: “we'd like eighth-grade algebra back, we'd like schools reopened.” This is late 2021. “It would be nice for my kid not to have three years of no school.”It was an unapologetically liberal politics that was powering that, and it was unapologetic in how it framed itself, how it spoke, how it used social media. And I thought, “Okay, now maybe liberals will see”—again, not Democrats, but liberals, people who believe in the core liberal values—“people will start to see that there's real power in direct, unapologetic appeals.” And it is my sincere hope that we start to see that in a movement that rises to push back against the excesses of MAHA and things like that.[In the new edition of my book], the new epilogue is really about how these dynamics play out once a group is actually in power—because a lot of people think of social media as a tool of insurgency, and once you're in power, that's supposedly the end of it. What's been interesting watching Trump and DOGE is that they've kept that cycle going: people still believe they're having an impact, shaping policy.We saw a version of this with Obama, who was a very digital candidate—he rose to power on a lot of popular digital support, did interviews with content creators, that kind of thing. There were creators in the White House—my friend Destin Sandlin, who runs Smarter Every Day, did an interview with Obama. There was a sense that the administration was beginning to engage with new media, but there was still a divide: the new media was media, engaging with the president on certain terms, at certain times, in certain venues. What you're seeing from this administration is they're literally the press corps, seated front and center. Some of them are even working as special government employees, which is wild—and there are some real ethical issues there. But there's still a sense that the online movement, that source of validation that propelled someone to a win, is actively in there, working with them on governance and policy.Is that a mirage, to some extent? Yes—there's a veneer of them wanting to do something anyway and using online narratives to justify it. And I'd argue that once an influencer becomes a special government employee, they're no longer independent—they're speaking as an agent of the government at that point. But setting that aside, you really do see the way those boundaries are shifting, and that sense of personal participation is what keeps this particular populist movement feeling valuable to its participants.Belvedere: I remember when Madison Cawthorn infamously hired only comms people rather than policy people, and a lot of people in conservative-adjacent spaces saw that as the start of a new era. The model is no longer Paul Ryan-ing your way through, nor is it about governing—Cawthorn was actively, explicitly building a kind of image-only candidacy, seeing how far that element alone could carry him. It didn't carry him very far; a few things tripped him up, like, hilariously, a visit to Hitler's home. But he was building toward being a comms-only operation as the only thing that matters now. When Trump did the whole Alligator Alcatraz stunt, that's the same understanding at work—it's an ongoing comms exercise, you have to keep the performative aspect going, because the campaign never really stops.We're out of time. Thank you so much, Renée.Thanks for checking out The UnPopulist! Subscribe to support our project.© The UnPopulist, 2026Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy. Get full access to The UnPopulist at www.theunpopulist.net/subscribe

From December 11, 2023: The Senate last week failed to move forward the national security supplemental, which includes a large package of aid for Ukraine. The holdup? Migration at the southern border and Republican insistence that the administration and Democrats will have to swallow major policy changes in order to get the Ukraine aid through. Meanwhile, the mood in Kyiv is a little down. The counteroffensive did not go as planned, the U.S. aid situation and the European commitment to Ukraine is alarming, and domestic politics are returning after a hiatus during the first couple years of the war. To chew over the state of Ukraine and its support from the United States, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Eric Ciaramella of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a former CIA Ukraine analyst, and Molly Reynolds, Lawfare Senior Editor and Congressional Guru. They talked about the state of the Ukraine aid package in Congress, about whether a deal on the border is possible, about whether such a deal could pass the House, and about Ciaramella's recent trip to Kyiv and the mood there as Congress dithers.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What do three of Yale Law School's sharpest new graduates actually think about the future of the legal profession? I recently sat down with Sam Haddad — Student Body President at YLS, clinical fellow in both the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Clinic and Community and Economic Development Clinic, Certum Group's summer fellow, and now an incoming associate at Latham & Watkins — along with Sharon Du (Executive Editor for Articles at the Yale Journal for International Law, formerly a James C. Gaither Junior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and now an Equal Justice Works Fellow at the ACLU of Southern California,) and Christian Aviles (Executive Editor for the Yale Law & Policy Review, Yale Journal on Regulation, Fellow in the Chae Initiative for Private Sector Leadership; Hurst Horizon Scholar,  joining Simpson Thacher & Bartlett) for a candid conversation about law school, career expectations, and what comes after graduation. We covered: ▪️ The biggest surprises and challenges of law school — academic, professional, and social ▪️ Whether the traditional firm-to-partnership path is still the "ideal legal career" in the eyes of today's graduates ▪️ Whether law schools do enough to expose students to litigation finance, insurance, legal tech, consulting, and business ▪️ What genuinely worries this class — the billable hour or the rise of artificial intelligence in the practice of law, and ▪️ The advice they'd give an undergraduate considering law school today Sam's summer with us was a reminder of why we invest in the fellowship: the questions this generation is asking about the profession are sharper than the ones we were asking and the vast careers a law degree can provide outside the practice of law is squarely among them.

Today's guest is Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili, Founding Director of the Center for Governance and Markets and a Professor at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public and International Affairs. She is a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a Distinguished Fellow of Peace and International Cooperation at the Institute for Humane Studies. In this episode, Alon and Jennifer discuss the situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban, particularly the difference between the Taliban 1.0 that ruled in the 1990s prior to the US invasion, and the current Taliban 2.0, the Taliban's relations with Afghanistan's neighboring countries, women's rights in Afghanistan currently, and the prospective for insurgency against the Taliban. Full bio Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili is Founding Director of the Center for Governance and Markets and a Professor at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public & International Affairs. Her research focuses on issues of self-governance, security, political economy, and public sector reform in Eurasia, Central Eurasia, and South Asia. She is a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a Distinguished Fellow of Peace and International Cooperation at the Institute for Humane Studies. Murtazashvili is the author of several books including Land, the State, and War: Property Institutions and Political Order in Afghanistan (Cambridge University Press, 2021) with Ilia Murtazashvili, and Informal Order and the State in Afghanistan (Cambridge University Press, 2016), which received the Best Book Award in Social Sciences by the Central Eurasian Studies Society and received honorable mention from the International Development Section of the International Studies Association. Murtazashvili has advised the United States Agency for International Development, the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, World Bank, the US Department of Defense, the United Nations Development Program, and UNICEF. She is the President of the Central Eurasian Studies Society and a board member of CEDOS a Kyiv-based organization focused on urban policy and education in Ukraine. She is a member of PONARS Eurasia, a research organization focused on security issues in Eurasia. She previously served as a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

What the hell is Beijing doing to seduce Washington? Join us for the last in our summer book series for a discussion with Dr. Audrye Wong for a conversation about her new book, Subversion and Seduction: China's Economic Statecraft. How the hell has Beijing gained influence inside the United States? What the hell are their carrots and sticks? We debrief the state of China's seduction campaign and Audrye's policy suggestions to counter Beijing.Audrye Wong is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where her work focuses on China's foreign policy, economic statecraft, propaganda and disinformation campaigns, and foreign influence operations. Previously, Dr. Wong was a professor at the University of Southern California and postdoctoral fellow at the Grand Strategy, Security, and Statecraft joint program of the Harvard Kennedy School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Security Studies Program. She has also held affiliations with Harvard's Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, the Wilson Center, the Brookings Institution, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She is fluent in Mandarin. Dr. Wong holds a PhD, MA and AB from Princeton.Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

Jane opens with a framing that runs through the entire conversation: for Africa, the subsea cable story is not primarily about geopolitics. It is about connecting citizens and translating that connectivity into economic participation. Less than 40% of Africans use the internet, and while infrastructure investments are significant, the benefits tend to concentrate in urban hubs like Nairobi, Lagos, and Cape Town, while rural populations, women, and landlocked countries remain underserved. The 2024 cable cut that affected ten African countries brought into sharp focus just how fragile the system is. Africa has only one dedicated cable repair vessel for the entire continent, and mobilizing it costs millions of dollars and takes days. Jane walks through what is now being put in place: clearer government notification protocols, mandated interconnection between telecom operators, and cross-border coordination frameworks, with West Africa emerging as a model that the rest of the continent has not yet replicated. On Chinese infrastructure, Jane is pragmatic. The framing of east versus west is, in her view, the wrong one for African policymakers who are already deeply invested in Chinese telecom towers, terrestrial fiber, and mobile devices across the continent. The more useful question is how to secure what already exists, ensuring cybersecurity safeguards are in place regardless of where the infrastructure comes from. On the ITU advisory body, whose final report was published in Geneva in July, the recommendations cover coordination, standards, and geographic diversity, but the document is non-binding. The real work, she says, now rests with national governments and regulators to take those recommendations forward. Episode Contributors Charukeshi Bhatt is a research analyst at Carnegie India, where her work focuses on the intersection of emerging technologies and international security. Her current research explores how advancements in technologies such as AI are shaping global disarmament frameworks and security norms. Jane Munga is a Fellow in the Africa Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where she leads research on technology policy. Her work addresses how African countries can harness digital technologies to advance inclusive and sustainable growth. Her work focuses on the nexus of digital policy, digital partnerships, and developing the foundational elements of digital development. Readings India's Stake in the Global Subsea Cable RaceSubsea Cables, Trusted Networks, and India's Strategic Opportunity Every two weeks, Interpreting India brings you diverse voices from India and around the world to explore the critical questions shaping the nation's future. We delve into how technology, the economy, and foreign policy intertwine to influence India's relationship with the global stage.As a Carnegie India production, hosted by Carnegie scholars, Interpreting India, a Carnegie India production, provides insightful perspectives and cutting-edge by tackling the defining questions that chart India's course through the next decade.Stay tuned for thought-provoking discussions, expert insights, and a deeper understanding of India's place in the world.Don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review to join the conversation and be part of Interpreting India's journey.

Judy Dempsey, Senior Scholar in Berlin for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, with co-host Thaddeus McCotter: Dempsey describes European Baltic and Nordic leaders flocking to Kyiv, yet warns that "moral outrage" lacks a cohesive strategic plan to negotiate an end to the war. She highlights the rising prominence of the pro-Russian, far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in state elections. Interestingly, an ideological rift has emerged as radical AfD factions in East Germany sour on MAGA due to Trump's policies on Iran. McCotter delivers a severe critique of the MAGA-AfD relationship, arguing MAGA should never have "played footsies" with neo-Nazis, and asserting the AfD is fundamentally aligned with Vladimir Putin rather than the United States—their temporary embrace of MAGA merely a superficial attraction. Although West Germans have abandoned historical sentiments toward Russiadue to the Ukraine invasion, East Germany remains deeply split, harboring lingering sentimental pro-Russian views and separate post-unification cultural dynamics. (7)

CONTENTS THE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, 8-25-2026COVER OF FANTASTIC MAGAZINE OCTOBER 1961Liz Peek, columnist for The Hill and Fox News, discusses the surprising resilience of the American economy, noting that small businesses are reporting strong hiring and profitability growth based on broad National Federation of Independent Business and Bank of America data. While consumer spending remains robust, recent data reveals a K-shaped economy, where higher-income homeowners spend extensively on renovations while lower-income consumers trade down at Walmart. Rising interest rates present a critical challenge, slamming the housing market and significantly increasing interest payments on the massive national debt. Lastly, the administration's tariff conflict with Canada is criticized as a major, highly unfortunate, and economically damaging political mistake. (1)Jonathan Schanzer, Executive Director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, evaluates the Treasury's initial tranches of secondary sanctions targeting entities trading with Iran, including firms in China and the UAE. Although these measures stop short of targeting major Chinese banks, they provide President Trump with leverage ahead of his Washington summit with Xi Jinping. Within the Middle East, Schanzer warns that regional powers are hedging their bets. Saudi Arabia may be negotiating a separate peace with the Houthis and Iran, which could undermine US sanctions. Additionally, the US controversially rescinded Syria's state sponsor of terror status following the rapid rise of former al-Qaeda commander Ahmed al-Shara. (2)Mary Kissel, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and former Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State, analyzes Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, asserting that its success relies on penalizing large Chinesefinancial institutions. However, Beijing holds significant economic and military leverage over the US, including export controls on critical minerals. Regarding North America, Kissel describes the escalating trade war with Canada as a "loser's game" driven by domestic politics. She stresses that the 50% tariffs on essential materials like Canadianaluminum and auto parts disrupt deeply integrated supply chains. Consequently, this trade conflict severely harms ordinary consumers and threatens Republican control of key Senate seats in critical border states of Maine and Michigan. (3)Colonel Jeff McCausland, US Army (Retired) and Visiting Professor at Dickinson College, warns that the US foreign policy process has collapsed under President Trump, who relies on personal loyalty over expert advice. This is illustrated by Trump's sudden decision to reduce joint US-South Korea military exercises without notifying allies. McCausland argues this undercuts South Korea while offering concessions to a nuclear-armed dictator, Kim Jong-un, who actively supplies weapons to Russia for the Ukraine war. Furthermore, he criticizes the "economic D-Day" against Iran as highly insincere given key delays in sanctioning China, and strongly condemns the trade war against Canada, a loyal ally with a rich military history. (4)Gregory Copley, editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs, argues that the US sanctions regime against Iran is strategic signaling that makes Washington look weak, as it ignores China's trade dominance and threatens relations with India. He also views the Canadian trade dispute as a strategic failure that weakens the NORAD treaty and forces Canada to act independently in the Arctic. This unpredictability has alienated European allies, who are now bypassing the US to negotiate directly on Ukraine. Additionally, Copley analyzes post-Petro Colombia, detailing how the energetic new president faces massive domestic security issues, narco-trafficking networks, and the grounding of critical disaster relief aircraft under sanctions. (5)Thaddeus McCotter, former US Representative from Michigan and columnist for American Greatness, details the severe political and economic fallout of Trump's trade war with Canada, noting that insulting rhetoric like the "51st state" remark has politically boosted Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. He explains that border states like Michigan and Maine share deep commercial integration, meaning 50% tariffs will directly harm their local economies. This unvetted policy blindsided senior Republican legislators, including Susan Collins, who openly opposed the tariffs and avoided a campaign rally with Vice President Vance. Ultimately, McCotter warns that these tariffs jeopardize critical Senate seats in highly contested swing states, giving rival Democrats a very major campaign advantage. (6)Judy Dempsey, Senior Scholar in Berlin for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, with co-host Thaddeus McCotter: Dempsey describes European Baltic and Nordic leaders flocking to Kyiv, yet warns that "moral outrage" lacks a cohesive strategic plan to negotiate an end to the war. She highlights the rising prominence of the pro-Russian, far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in state elections. Interestingly, an ideological rift has emerged as radical AfD factions in East Germany sour on MAGA due to Trump's policies on Iran. McCotter delivers a severe critique of the MAGA-AfD relationship, arguing MAGA should never have "played footsies" with neo-Nazis, and asserting the AfD is fundamentally aligned with Vladimir Putin rather than the United States—their temporary embrace of MAGA merely a superficial attraction. Although West Germans have abandoned historical sentiments toward Russiadue to the Ukraine invasion, East Germany remains deeply split, harboring lingering sentimental pro-Russian views and separate post-unification cultural dynamics. (7)Note: segment 7 came with a separate co-host block for McCotter, so I've folded his critique into the single paragraph after Dempsey's material — flag me if you'd rather run his commentary as its own standalone file.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threatened a crackdown Monday on countries doing business with Tehran. Will Tehran be able to withstand the impact, or will the government be forced back to the negotiating table? Karim Sadjadpour, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, joins the show to discuss.  Also on today's show: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Former Obama White House Health Policy Adviser & Dr. Hussein Tawbi, Oncologist, Univ. of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Frank McKenna, Fmr. Canadian Ambassador to the US    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Steve Feldstein's Bytes and Bullets: Global Rivalries, Private Tech, and the New Shape of Modern Warfare (St. Martin's Press, 2026) opens with a juxtaposition: China spending vast sums to reach the far side of the moon, and Ukraine using cheap drones to blunt a far larger military. Both are stories about technology and power, but they point in opposite directions. In our conversation, Feldstein argues that the outcome of technological competition is not predetermined. Small states, non-state actors, and private companies with the right engineers can now challenge much stronger adversaries. We discuss Iran, whose military innovation grew out of decades of sanctions rather than in spite of them, and why Western analysts dismissed what was in plain sight. We then turn to China and Feldstein's concern that the United States is making unforced errors, hollowing out the basic research on which its edge depends. Bytes and Bullets resists both technological determinism and the claim that nothing has changed. But this book is also candid about what cannot be predicted: as machines take on decisions humans once made, who, if anyone, will set the limits? Our guest is Steven Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program.  Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Steve Feldstein's Bytes and Bullets: Global Rivalries, Private Tech, and the New Shape of Modern Warfare (St. Martin's Press, 2026) opens with a juxtaposition: China spending vast sums to reach the far side of the moon, and Ukraine using cheap drones to blunt a far larger military. Both are stories about technology and power, but they point in opposite directions. In our conversation, Feldstein argues that the outcome of technological competition is not predetermined. Small states, non-state actors, and private companies with the right engineers can now challenge much stronger adversaries. We discuss Iran, whose military innovation grew out of decades of sanctions rather than in spite of them, and why Western analysts dismissed what was in plain sight. We then turn to China and Feldstein's concern that the United States is making unforced errors, hollowing out the basic research on which its edge depends. Bytes and Bullets resists both technological determinism and the claim that nothing has changed. But this book is also candid about what cannot be predicted: as machines take on decisions humans once made, who, if anyone, will set the limits? Our guest is Steven Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program.  Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

Steve Feldstein's Bytes and Bullets: Global Rivalries, Private Tech, and the New Shape of Modern Warfare (St. Martin's Press, 2026) opens with a juxtaposition: China spending vast sums to reach the far side of the moon, and Ukraine using cheap drones to blunt a far larger military. Both are stories about technology and power, but they point in opposite directions. In our conversation, Feldstein argues that the outcome of technological competition is not predetermined. Small states, non-state actors, and private companies with the right engineers can now challenge much stronger adversaries. We discuss Iran, whose military innovation grew out of decades of sanctions rather than in spite of them, and why Western analysts dismissed what was in plain sight. We then turn to China and Feldstein's concern that the United States is making unforced errors, hollowing out the basic research on which its edge depends. Bytes and Bullets resists both technological determinism and the claim that nothing has changed. But this book is also candid about what cannot be predicted: as machines take on decisions humans once made, who, if anyone, will set the limits? Our guest is Steven Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program.  Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Steve Feldstein's Bytes and Bullets: Global Rivalries, Private Tech, and the New Shape of Modern Warfare (St. Martin's Press, 2026) opens with a juxtaposition: China spending vast sums to reach the far side of the moon, and Ukraine using cheap drones to blunt a far larger military. Both are stories about technology and power, but they point in opposite directions. In our conversation, Feldstein argues that the outcome of technological competition is not predetermined. Small states, non-state actors, and private companies with the right engineers can now challenge much stronger adversaries. We discuss Iran, whose military innovation grew out of decades of sanctions rather than in spite of them, and why Western analysts dismissed what was in plain sight. We then turn to China and Feldstein's concern that the United States is making unforced errors, hollowing out the basic research on which its edge depends. Bytes and Bullets resists both technological determinism and the claim that nothing has changed. But this book is also candid about what cannot be predicted: as machines take on decisions humans once made, who, if anyone, will set the limits? Our guest is Steven Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program.  Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

Steve Feldstein's Bytes and Bullets: Global Rivalries, Private Tech, and the New Shape of Modern Warfare (St. Martin's Press, 2026) opens with a juxtaposition: China spending vast sums to reach the far side of the moon, and Ukraine using cheap drones to blunt a far larger military. Both are stories about technology and power, but they point in opposite directions. In our conversation, Feldstein argues that the outcome of technological competition is not predetermined. Small states, non-state actors, and private companies with the right engineers can now challenge much stronger adversaries. We discuss Iran, whose military innovation grew out of decades of sanctions rather than in spite of them, and why Western analysts dismissed what was in plain sight. We then turn to China and Feldstein's concern that the United States is making unforced errors, hollowing out the basic research on which its edge depends. Bytes and Bullets resists both technological determinism and the claim that nothing has changed. But this book is also candid about what cannot be predicted: as machines take on decisions humans once made, who, if anyone, will set the limits? Our guest is Steven Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Steve Feldstein's Bytes and Bullets: Global Rivalries, Private Tech, and the New Shape of Modern Warfare (St. Martin's Press, 2026) opens with a juxtaposition: China spending vast sums to reach the far side of the moon, and Ukraine using cheap drones to blunt a far larger military. Both are stories about technology and power, but they point in opposite directions. In our conversation, Feldstein argues that the outcome of technological competition is not predetermined. Small states, non-state actors, and private companies with the right engineers can now challenge much stronger adversaries. We discuss Iran, whose military innovation grew out of decades of sanctions rather than in spite of them, and why Western analysts dismissed what was in plain sight. We then turn to China and Feldstein's concern that the United States is making unforced errors, hollowing out the basic research on which its edge depends. Bytes and Bullets resists both technological determinism and the claim that nothing has changed. But this book is also candid about what cannot be predicted: as machines take on decisions humans once made, who, if anyone, will set the limits? Our guest is Steven Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Branko is a research professor at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York. He received his PhD from the University of Belgrade in 1987 and served as lead economist in the World Bank's Research Department for almost 20 years, leaving to write his book on global income inequality, Worlds Apart. He later worked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, the University of Maryland, Johns Hopkins University, All Souls College in Oxford, and Universidad Carlos III in Madrid. Branko's main area of work is income inequality. He is the author of several books – the most recent one being  The Great Global Transformation. In this podcast, we discuss: The Shift to National Market Liberalism The Geopolitical and Personal Impact of China The Rise of "Homoplutia" The "Folksy Elite" and Meritocratic Ideology India's Alternative Development Model Europe's Strategic and Economic Paradox The Policy Dilemma of the "Elephant Chart" Elite Multiplication and Youth Anxiety

‘If there were a university delivering degrees in strategic malpractice, Donald Trump would without a doubt graduate summa cum laude.'On today's episode of Iran: the Latest, Roland Oliphant gets a damning assessment of the US-Iran war from one of America's most seasoned Middle East diplomats, Aaron David Miller. A former State Department analyst and negotiator across six Republican and Democratic administrations and now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Miller delivers a blunt verdict on Washington's strategic failures. As the Middle East conflict hits the six-month mark and the Strait of Hormuz remains officially closed, he explains why he can see no clear exit options for Trump. Despite Washington unleashing an "economic D-Day" and the "toughest sanctions in history," Tehran shows no sign of backing down. Plus, why Secretary of State Marco Rubio is MIA and how a “serious retrenchment” of US forces in the Gulf is likely, amid news that some bases may not be fully rebuilt after the war. Highlights‘Trump would graduate summa cum laude in strategic malpractice'Veteran US diplomat Aaron David Miller on the US-Iran war CONTRIBUTORS:Roland Oliphant, co-host and chief foreign affairs analyst @RolandOliphantAaron David Miller, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace @aarondmiller2WATCH US ON YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJnf_DDTfIVAif-vifC6F2aoPB8GIw6dkWinner Best News and Analysis Podcast - Publisher Podcast Awards 2026Nominated Podcast of the Year - Society of Editors News Podcasts Awards 2026Nominated Best News, Politics and Current Affairs - British Podcast Awards 2026The Telegraph, Winner Podcast Publisher of the Year 2026 - Publisher Podcast Awards 2026Audio Producer: David Dargahi Video Producer: Max BowerResearcher and Social Producer: Anna HindmarshStudio Operator: Andy WatsonExecutive Producer: Venetia Rainey ► Sign up to our most popular newsletter, From the Editor. Look forward to receiving free-thinking comment and the day's biggest stories, every morning. telegraph.co.uk/fromtheeditor► EMAIL US: Contact the team on battlelines@telegraph.co.uk► GET THE LATEST HEADLINES: Find all our latest Iran coverage here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/iran-war/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Why can't the US and China just get along when it comes to artificial intelligence? As the two nations jockey for an edge in AI, President's Trump and Xi prepare for a consequential summit where the tech race may play a bigger role than ever. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Scott Singer joins David Rothkopf to discuss why in the race for AI dominance between China the US, the best way to win might just be to work together. This material is distributed by TRG Advisory Services, LLC on behalf of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in the U.S.. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why can't the US and China just get along when it comes to artificial intelligence? As the two nations jockey for an edge in AI, President's Trump and Xi prepare for a consequential summit where the tech race may play a bigger role than ever. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Scott Singer joins David Rothkopf to discuss why in the race for AI dominance between China the US, the best way to win might just be to work together. This material is distributed by TRG Advisory Services, LLC on behalf of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in the U.S.. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's Land Warfare program, sponsored by American Rheinmetall, Sam Bendett of the Center for Naval Analyses and Dr. Eugene Rumer, the director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, join Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian to discuss the tenuous nature of the Ukraine war as both sides grapple for advantage over the front; use of autonomy, AI and unmanned ground systems; how Ukraine can defend itself from Russian ballistic missile attacks; role of North Korea in supporting Russia and the lessons Pyongyang is learning from the conflict; Vladimir Putin's stability as the war becomes increasingly unpopular wi the Russians as Duma elections loom; and the Russian leader's visit to the Kuril Islands last week.

The ongoing war in Ukraine has recently hit a grim milestone: in June 2026 it surpassed the duration of World War One. In this episode of the We Society, Michael Kofman talks to host Will Hutton about why what began as a bid for quick victory has become a grinding war of attrition, and now exhaustion, and how a social science lens aids his understanding of the conflict. Michael Kofman is one of the world's foremost authorities on the Russian military and the war in Ukraine. A senior fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he regularly presents evidence-led analysis of a conflict now in its fourth year. Born in Ukraine and travelling to the country every few months, he brings a rare combination of academic expertise and first-hand observation to a war that has reshaped modern warfare.This episode is ideal for listeners interested in topical issues, the war in Ukraine, the efficacy of international sanctions and modern warfare. In the We Society, join acclaimed journalist and Academy of Social Sciences president Will Hutton, as he invites guests from the world of social science to explore the stories behind the news and hear their solutions to society's most pressing problems. In this series social science calls on aspects of business, education, economics, geopolitics, healthcare, human geography and more, exploring their impact on society and the social policy they can inspire. The We Society is for those interested in how social science impacts their world, and how evidence backed research can improve it.Don't want to miss an episode? Follow the show on your favourite podcast platform and you can email us at wesociety@acss.org.uk to tell us who we should be speaking to.The We Society podcast is brought to you by the Academy of Social Sciences in association with the Nuffield Foundation and the Leverhulme Trust.Producer: Emily Uchida FinchAssistant Producer: Emily Gilbert A Whistledown Production for the Academy of Social Sciences

Last month, Trump bragged that the Board of Peace had accomplished a monumental breakthrough: an agreement for the disarmament of Hamas in Gaza. However, this “agreement” didn't really stand much of a chance because Hamas and the Israeli government were stuck in a classic standoff. And on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu turned down the deal. So not only are we nowhere near a peace deal, we're not even close to peace. To talk more about the failures of Trump and the Board of Peace, we spoke with Aaron David Miller, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace with a focus on U.S. foreign policy. He is a former State Department Middle East negotiator in both Republican and Democratic administrations.And in headlines, more states are gearing up for primary elections tomorrow, Trump scoffs at Iran's demand for reparations, and the Patriot Games have kicked off in Ohio.Show Notes: Check out Aaron's work – tinyurl.com/24enrkeb Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com

Kyiv is leveraging its drone prowess by striking deep inside Russia, yet Ukraine remains exposed due to a chronic shortage of air defences. Dara Massicot of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, gives the latest status of the war. Then, reflecting on America's 250th anniversary and how music forges communities. World-renowned cellist Yo-Yo Ma and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative Bryan Stevenson explain what drew them to curate "We The People", a series of performances aimed at envisioning a brighter future for the U.S. And, authorities in Russia are warning about the rise of so-called 'black widow' scams, where brides allegedly marry vulnerable recruits to cash in on compensation when they're killed in combat. CNN's Matthew Chance reports from inside Russia. Plus, love and humour shine through the cracks of the conflict and crises embattling Lebanon. Writer and Director of "A Sad and Beautiful World" Cyril Aras joins the show. Plus, the age-old debate over immigration to Europe is resurfacing following the mass influx of migrants into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta. From Christiane's archives, a look back at how Europe wrestled with the mass influx of Eastern European migrants escaping communism back in 1990. Air date: August 8, 2026 Guests: Dara Massicot Yo-Yo Ma and Bryan Stevenson Cyril Aras Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Almost a year after the Washington Declaration, Armenia is trying to turn a hard-won peace with Azerbaijan into something lasting. In this conversation, Armenia's ambassador to the United States, Narek Mkrtchyan, explains what the agreement means on the ground and why the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity could reshape the region and the country's future.“We sit in a very tough neighborhood. We sit in a very interesting geography. We are at the crossroads of Europe, Middle East, Central Asia, South Caucasus,” Mkrtchyan says.Mkrtchyan describes how Armenia is trying to turn geography into strategy through the development of diplomacy, new trade routes, and international partnerships. He views this as more than a peace process—it's a chance to redefine Armenia's place in the region.“In the center is the concept of crossroads of peace,” Mkrtchyan says.Recently, Armenia also got approval for the biggest artificial intelligence factory in the region—a $4 billion project that officials say could help make the country a hub for computing power and advanced technology.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

On The Power Vertical Podcast this week, host Brian Whitmore speaks with military analyst Michael Kofman, a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a senior editor at War on the Rocks, and host of the Russian Contingency Podcast who just returned from a visit to the front in eastern Ukraine.

Judy Dempsey, Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, describes a Europe struggling with record heat, wildfires, and critically low river levels that are hampering nuclear power and agriculture. She argues these patterns reflect a deteriorating climate requiring a global response. The conversation shifts to a massive migration incident where 60,000 young men attempted to enter a Spanish exclave from Morocco. Dempsey explains that this surge is being exploited by far-right parties across Europe, such as the AfD in Germany, who capitalize on voter dissatisfaction. She notes that despite bilateral labor agreements, the political fallout is fueling nationalism. (2)1651 SPAIN

SCHEDULE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW.  8-4-2026.1900 ST. LAWRENCEColonel Jeff McCausland, United States Army (Retired), discusses the critical depletion of United States missile stockpiles, particularly Patriot and THAAD systems, due to the intensifying war with Iran. He notes that these shortages might force a transition toward piloted bombing missions using heavy aircraft like the B-2 and B-52 for deep penetration. Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, McCausland highlights that Iran's ability to deploy sea mines and drones makes military reopening difficult. Turning to Ukraine, he predicts Vladimir Putin will escalate through mobilization rather than negotiation as both sides increasingly target food supplies in the Black Sea. (1)Judy Dempsey, Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, describes a Europe struggling with record heat, wildfires, and critically low river levels that are hampering nuclear power and agriculture. She argues these patterns reflect a deteriorating climate requiring a global response. The conversation shifts to a massive migration incident where 60,000 young men attempted to enter a Spanish exclave from Morocco. Dempsey explains that this surge is being exploited by far-right parties across Europe, such as the AfD in Germany, who capitalize on voter dissatisfaction. She notes that despite bilateral labor agreements, the political fallout is fueling nationalism. (2)Joseph Sternberg, Editorial Board Member of the Wall Street Journal, examines the release of Dr. Anthony Fauci's pandemic-era diaries, which reveal a dichotomy between his private doubts and public pronouncements regarding COVID-19's origins. Sternberg suggests Fauci became pathologically obsessed with his media coverage, positioning himself as an antagonist to Donald Trump to maintain his "star" status. The discussion also covers the growing influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Sternberg notes that young voters, disillusioned by the economy, are increasingly drawn to the DSA's radical, government-led solutions. He questions whether this movement can succeed in purple states. (3)Jonathan Schanzer, Executive Director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, discusses the alarming shortage of US defensive munitions needed to intercept Iranian threats. He notes that Iran, coached by Russia and China, is exploiting this crisis to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and drive up energy prices. Schanzer also addresses the significant weakening of Hezbollah after sustained Israeli operations and the complexities of disarming Hamas in Gaza. He highlights that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faces a political tightrope balancing military goals with international pressure. Finally, he observes the unraveling of Chinese-brokered agreements as Houthi threats against Saudi Arabia resurface. (4)Gregory Copley, Publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, analyzes global efforts to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, noting that Russia and China are seeking alternative trade corridors to undermine Washington's strategic influence. He suggests China is using current tensions to project American impotence before high-level diplomatic visits. Copley also discusses the "war on food" in the Black Sea, where blockades are forcing a diversification of global supplies. Turning to Ethiopia, he describes a brutal civil conflict involving ethnic factions and the use of Turkish drones against civilian targets. He concludes with the success of King Charles III at the Commonwealth Games. (5)Bill Roggio and Bridget Toomey of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies discuss the Houthis' re-entry into the regional war by declaring a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea. Roggio criticizes the Trumpadministration's lack of a forceful military response, arguing that two US destroyers are insufficient to secure vital waterways. Toomey explains that the Houthis use these attacks to re-establish domestic norms and pressure the global oil market. They note that while the Houthis operate independently, their actions align with Iranian goals to use control over maritime chokepoints as a strategic "nuclear weapon." (6)Andrea Stricker, Deputy Director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, outlines the proliferation risks associated with a proposed US-Saudi nuclear cooperation agreement. She expresses concern over uranium enrichment on Saudi soil, which could enable a nuclear weapons pathway. Stricker warns that granting enrichment rights would destroy the "gold standard" for non-proliferation and likely trigger a nuclear arms race involving Turkey and Egypt. Although President Trump has added caveats regarding the Abraham Accords, Saudi Arabia has threatened to turn to China for technology. Stricker notes the deal faces a difficult 90-day congressional review starting in September. (7)Conrad Black, distinguished biographer and National Post columnist, discusses the "aberrant" trade tensions between the US and Canada following the imposition of tariffs based on allegations of forced labor in Chinese imports. Black argues these tariffs are a legal workaround for the Trump administration to bypass the Supreme Court by declaring a national emergency. He characterizes the policy as arbitrary and offensive, noting it has dampened cross-border tourism and led to retaliatory tariffs on items like hockey sticks. Despite the current friction, Black remains optimistic that the dispute will be resolved through negotiation because he believes President Trump fundamentally likes Canada. (8)

Markets have remained notably risk-on in 2026, even as geopolitical fragmentation, energy chokepoints and intensifying U.S.-China competition continue to raise the stakes for investors and businesses. In this episode of J.P. Morgan's Making Sense, Joyce Chang, chair of Global Research at J.P. Morgan, is joined by Paul Haenle, head of APAC Policy and Strategic Competitiveness at J.P. Morgan, and Karim Sadjadpour, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, to unpack how the Middle East conflict could continue to unfold — and what elevated geopolitical risk means for global markets. They discuss the strategic objectives and end states of the conflict, how ongoing disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb could impact global oil and LNG flows, as well as how China weighs the risks of instability against the opportunities of U.S. distraction. The conversation also looks ahead to the September U.S.-China summit and explores how AI competition is reshaping the relationship between the world's two largest economies.   This episode was recorded on July 22, 2026.   This communication is provided for information purposes only. Please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. JPMorgan Chase & Co. or its affiliates and/or subsidiaries (collectively, J.P. Morgan) normally make a market and trade as principal in securities, other financial products and other asset classes that may be discussed in this communication. This communication has been prepared based upon information from sources believed to be reliable, but J.P. Morgan does not warrant its completeness or accuracy except with respect to any disclosures relative to J.P. Morgan and/or its affiliates and an analyst's involvement with any company (or security, other financial product or other asset class) that may be the subject of this communication. Any opinions and estimates constitute our judgment as of the date of this material and are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This communication is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. J.P. Morgan Research does not provide individually tailored investment advice. Any opinions and recommendations herein do not take into account individual circumstances, objectives, or needs and are not intended as recommendations of particular securities, financial instruments or strategies. You must make your own independent decisions regarding any securities, financial instruments or strategies mentioned or related to the information herein. Periodic updates may be provided on companies, issuers or industries based on specific developments or announcements, market conditions or any other publicly available information. However, J.P. Morgan may be restricted from updating information contained in this communication for regulatory or other reasons. This communication may not be redistributed or retransmitted, in whole or in part, or in any form or manner, without the express written consent of J.P. Morgan. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. Receipt and review of this information constitutes your agreement not to redistribute or retransmit the contents and information contained in this communication without first obtaining express permission from an authorized officer of J.P. Morgan. © 2026, JPMorganChase & Co. All rights reserved.

Since the conflict in Iran began in February, the results have been mixed. It has degraded Iran's nuclear capacity, reduced its missile arsenal, and sunk its navy. But the war has also closed the Strait of Hormuz, divided America's Gulf allies, fractured the U.S.-Israeli relationship, and failed to achieve objectives like regime change and nuclear elimination. A panel of Iran experts with different perspectives discuss whether the conflict could mark the end of the Islamic Republic's long strategy of proxy warfare or the beginning of a far more dangerous Middle East. Journalist and author Fareed Zakaria leads the conversation with Kim Ghattas, Karim Sadjadpour, and Mark Dubowitz. Ghattas is an Emmy-award winning journalist. Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mark Dubowitz is CEO of Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Their conversation was held June 29.

Donald Trump's MOU with Iran was supposed to stop the war and then end it.  Now it's barely worth the paper it's written on. The bombing has resumed. The Strait of Hormuz remains largely shut. And now the conflict is spreading to the Red Sea, with the Houthis declaring a blockade on Saudi shipping.  So, is this what a forever war looks like?  Today, former US State Department Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller on the few options Donald Trump has leftFeatured:Aaron David Miller, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former Middle East Negotiator at the US State Department

On this episode, Senior Editor Kate Klonick speaks with Steve Feldstein, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, about his recent Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists essay on AI targeting systems. Feldstein argues that the conventional wisdom about AI warfare has it backwards: the technology's battlefield debut in Iran, Ukraine, and Gaza is real and consequential, but AI targeting is not a model you download—it's a stack of surveillance infrastructure, data pipelines, battle management software, and strike capacity that takes decades and billions to build, which means it will spread far more slowly and unevenly than the common narrative suggests.Among the things they discuss: what the Iran War's staggering Maven numbers do and don't prove, how Israel became the case study in what it actually takes to build an AI kill chain, why the same handful of American tech companies that govern online speech now supply the infrastructure of targeting—and who is accountable when they do, whether the UAE is next, and whether export controls, or norms, can realistically slow any of it down.Additional resources:Steve Feldstein, “Bytes and Bullets: Global Rivalry, Private Tech, and the New Shape of Modern Warfare” (St. Martin's Press, September 2026)Steve Feldstein, "Anthropic-Pentagon Feud Over AI Technology Is a Bad Sign" (Foreign Policy, February 2026)Steve Feldstein, “The Rise of Digital Repression: How Technology is Reshaping Power, Politics, and Resistance” (Oxford University Press, 2021)To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lawfare Contributing Editor Mykhailo Soldatenko sits down with Eric Ciaramella, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Samuel Charap, Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation, to take stock of the U.S.-led negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. They discuss the improvements in Ukraine's position, the structure of negotiations, territorial questions, and security commitments to Ukraine.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Democracy Dialogues, Frances Cayton speaks with four experts on Polish politics about the success of Poland's opposition coalition in 2023, and the headwinds that democracy continues to face today. What challenges do parties and civil society face in building pro-democracy electoral coalitions? If victorious, how do these challenges affect post-election governance and efforts at pursuing democratic renewal? This episode brings together politicians, political scientists, and civil society leaders who each played a critical role in the 2023 elections to examine what made Poland's pro-democracy mobilization possible, the gains the 2023 coalition has achieved since entering power, and the challenges it continues to face in pursuing democratic renewal.This episode was originally recorded as a part of the Lessons from Global Democratic Resistance panel series. The series brings together frontline activists, civic leaders, institutional actors, and field‑informed scholars to examine how democratic actors have resisted, responded to, and learned from democratic backsliding across countries. The series aims to identify practical lessons and comparative insights for those defending democracy today and is organized in collaboration with the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University; Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania; the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame; the Democratic Futures Project at the University of Virginia; Stanford's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law; and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mikołaj Cześnik, Director of the Institute of Social Science at SWPS University, Chairman of the Council of the Stefan Batory Foundation Michał Wawrykiewicz, Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Co-Founder of the civic initiative Wolne Sady (Free Courts) Marek Tatała, President and Co-Founder of the Economic Freedom Foundation Dominika Lasota, Student and Activist in the Youth Climate Strike Poland, Co-Founder of Inicjatywa WSCHÓD Frances Cayton is a PhD Candidate in Government at Cornell University. Her research focuses on questions surrounding democratic backsliding, civil society, and political communication. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This week on Democracy Dialogues, Frances Cayton speaks with four experts on Polish politics about the success of Poland's opposition coalition in 2023, and the headwinds that democracy continues to face today. What challenges do parties and civil society face in building pro-democracy electoral coalitions? If victorious, how do these challenges affect post-election governance and efforts at pursuing democratic renewal? This episode brings together politicians, political scientists, and civil society leaders who each played a critical role in the 2023 elections to examine what made Poland's pro-democracy mobilization possible, the gains the 2023 coalition has achieved since entering power, and the challenges it continues to face in pursuing democratic renewal.This episode was originally recorded as a part of the Lessons from Global Democratic Resistance panel series. The series brings together frontline activists, civic leaders, institutional actors, and field‑informed scholars to examine how democratic actors have resisted, responded to, and learned from democratic backsliding across countries. The series aims to identify practical lessons and comparative insights for those defending democracy today and is organized in collaboration with the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University; Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania; the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame; the Democratic Futures Project at the University of Virginia; Stanford's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law; and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mikołaj Cześnik, Director of the Institute of Social Science at SWPS University, Chairman of the Council of the Stefan Batory Foundation Michał Wawrykiewicz, Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Co-Founder of the civic initiative Wolne Sady (Free Courts) Marek Tatała, President and Co-Founder of the Economic Freedom Foundation Dominika Lasota, Student and Activist in the Youth Climate Strike Poland, Co-Founder of Inicjatywa WSCHÓD Frances Cayton is a PhD Candidate in Government at Cornell University. Her research focuses on questions surrounding democratic backsliding, civil society, and political communication. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

This week on Democracy Dialogues, Frances Cayton speaks with four experts on Polish politics about the success of Poland's opposition coalition in 2023, and the headwinds that democracy continues to face today. What challenges do parties and civil society face in building pro-democracy electoral coalitions? If victorious, how do these challenges affect post-election governance and efforts at pursuing democratic renewal? This episode brings together politicians, political scientists, and civil society leaders who each played a critical role in the 2023 elections to examine what made Poland's pro-democracy mobilization possible, the gains the 2023 coalition has achieved since entering power, and the challenges it continues to face in pursuing democratic renewal.This episode was originally recorded as a part of the Lessons from Global Democratic Resistance panel series. The series brings together frontline activists, civic leaders, institutional actors, and field‑informed scholars to examine how democratic actors have resisted, responded to, and learned from democratic backsliding across countries. The series aims to identify practical lessons and comparative insights for those defending democracy today and is organized in collaboration with the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University; Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania; the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame; the Democratic Futures Project at the University of Virginia; Stanford's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law; and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mikołaj Cześnik, Director of the Institute of Social Science at SWPS University, Chairman of the Council of the Stefan Batory Foundation Michał Wawrykiewicz, Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Co-Founder of the civic initiative Wolne Sady (Free Courts) Marek Tatała, President and Co-Founder of the Economic Freedom Foundation Dominika Lasota, Student and Activist in the Youth Climate Strike Poland, Co-Founder of Inicjatywa WSCHÓD Frances Cayton is a PhD Candidate in Government at Cornell University. Her research focuses on questions surrounding democratic backsliding, civil society, and political communication. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Conversations on Groong - July 10, 2026In this episode of Conversations on Groong, we speak with Dr. Sergey Markedonov about Russia's strategic position amid the Ukraine War and its implications for Armenia. We discuss why Moscow remains bogged down in Ukraine despite its military superiority, how the war of attrition shapes Russian bandwidth for the South Caucasus, the geopolitical role of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, and Pashinyan's Western pivot following the June 2026 Armenian Parliamentary Election.Topics:Ukraine's war of attritionRussia's strategic bandwidth problemTRIPP and Iran's red linesIsrael's Armenian Genocide moveArmenia's Western pivot after electionsGuest: Sergey MarkedonovHosts:Hovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 565 | Recorded: July 8, 2026SHOW NOTES: https://podcasts.groong.org/565VIDEO: https://youtu.be/YqsHd8TSyHQ#ArmenianNews #SouthCaucasus #UkraineWar #Russia #Armenia #EAEU #TRIPP #GeopoliticsSubscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

A major Russian assault lit up the skies of Kyiv and surrounding areas, killing at least 21 people and injuring many more. This comes as Russia too is seeing increasing losses of both territory and of troops. Michael Kofman is a military analyst and Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and joins the show from Virginia to discuss.    Also on today's show: CNN Global Affairs Analyst Karim Sadjadpour; Iranian-American conservationist Morad Tahbaz, who was detained in Iran for five years; CNN Senior Sports Analyst Darren Lewis    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Preview for Later Today: Judy Dempsey. Resident Specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Berlin, specializing in European populist movements, German politics, and regional security. She examines the political exploitation of Volkswagen layoffs by the AfD (Alternative for Germany) and the party's lack of viable economic solutions, and monitors the rise of the AfD in polls and their opposition to NATO, the EU, and military conscription.

The making of India's Constitution is usually told as the story of the few hundred prominent lawyers, politicians, and intellectuals who comprised the Constituent Assembly—the body tasked with drafting this historic document between 1946 and 1949. But a new book by the scholars Rohit De and Ornit Shani, Assembling India's Constitution: A New Democratic History, argues this familiar account captures only part of the story. Drawing on a remarkable range of archival material, the book shows that constitution-making was not confined to the halls of the Constituent Assembly alone. It also played out in provincial legislatures, princely states, government offices, civic associations, and communities across India. Ordinary citizens debated the constitution, petitioned its authors, organized around it, and creatively sought to shape its provisions. To discuss the book and its relevance for our understanding of India's democratic evolution, Rohit and Ornit join Milan on the show this week. Rohit is a professor of history at Yale University and the author of A People's Constitution: The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic. Ornit is an associate professor of Asian Studies at Haifa University. She is the author of How India Became Democratic: Citizenship and the Making of the Universal Franchise. The trio discuss the serendipitous origins of the book, the authors' unusual writing process, and the gaps in the conventional account of India's constitution-making. Plus, the three talk about overlooked constitution-making efforts in the princely states and the forgotten story of Manipur's democratic experiment. Episode notes: “India's Hidden Treatise on Statecraft (with Rahul Sagar),” Grand Tamasha, November 2, 2022. Rohit De, A People's Constitution: The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018). Ornit Shani, How India Became Democratic: Citizenship and the Making of the Universal Franchise (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017).  Rohit De and Ornit Shani, “Assembling India's Constitution: Towards a New History* Open Access,” Past & Present 263, no. 1 (May 2024): 205-248. Video: “How India Became Democratic (with Ornit Shani),” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 25, 2018.

Host Piya Chattopadhyay speaks with Aaron David Miller, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and national security analyst Joseph Cirincione about the initial agreement between the United States and Iran.University of Alberta professor Crystal Gail Fraser and anthropologist Sara Komarnisky discuss the evolution of treaties and how they're playing into a range of issues today.The Guardian's Brussels correspondent, Jennifer Rankin, unpacks the relationship between the EU and UK, 10 years post-Brexit. Then, former British Conservative MP Andrew Percy and political scientist Ian Cooper discuss the lessons Canada can take from the UK's experience as Alberta considers separation.The New York Times investigative journalist Jodi Kantor shares advice for new grads and finding your life's work.

Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on U.S. foreign policy. He has written five books, including his most recent, The End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want) Another Great President (Palgrave, 2014) and The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace (Bantam, 2008). He received his PhD in Middle East and U.S. diplomatic history from the University of Michigan in 1977. Between 1978 and 2003, Miller served at the State Department as an historian, analyst, negotiator, and advisor to Republican and Democratic secretaries of state, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process, most recently as the senior advisor for Arab-Israeli negotiations. He also served as the deputy special Middle East coordinator for Arab-Israeli negotiations, senior member of the State Department's policy planning staff, in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and in the office of the historian. He has received the department's Distinguished, Superior, and Meritorious Honor Awards. Miller is a member of the  Council on Foreign Relations, and formerly served as resident scholar at the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been a featured presenter at the World Economic Forum and leading U.S. universities. Between 2003 and 2006 he served as president of Seeds of Peace, a nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering young leaders from regions of conflict with the leadership skills required to advance reconciliation and coexistence. From 2006 to 2019, Miller was a public policy scholar; vice president for new initiatives, and director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Miller is a global affairs analyst for CNN. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Foreign Policy, USAToday, and CNN.com. He is a frequent commentator on NPR, BBC, and Sirius XM radio.   On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Listen rate and review on Apple Podcasts Listen rate and review on Spotify Pete On Instagram Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on Twitter Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo All things Jon Carroll Buy Ava's Art Subscribe to Piano Tuner Paul Paul Wesley on Substack Listen to Barry and Abigail Hummel Podcast Listen to Matty C Podcast and Substack Follow and Support Pete Coe

Today on the program, as the US and Iran appear to be closer to an agreement to end the war, Fareed speaks with Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group. Next, Elon Musk's rocket company SpaceX became the largest IPO ever this week. The company has ambitious goals for space exploration — are they realistic? Fareed asks astrophysicist Janna Levin. Finally, according to a new poll, more than half of Americans believe AI could put them or someone in their household out of a job. But the labor market data shows that the panic may be premature. So, what is the reality? Fareed speaks with AI policy expert Molly Kinder. GUESTS: Karim Sadjadpour (@ksadjadpour), Ian Bremmer (@ianbremmer), Janna Levin (@JannaLevin), Molly Kinder (@MollyKinder) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

St. Louis' top officials are working with members of Missouri's congressional delegation to obtain much-needed funds to rebuild parts of the city that were destroyed by last year's EF3 tornado. But getting that money will require Congress to act. Sarah Labowitz of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace discusses the Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Relief program on “The Politically Speaking Hour on St. Louis on the Air.”

On the latest episode of the Politically Speaking Hour on St. Louis on the Air, Sarah Labowitz of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace joins the program to talk about the Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Relief program. Later, STLPR's Rachel Lippmann discussed the push from the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners to raise pay for commanders.

Despite all the advancements we have achieved globally in recent decades, as many as 750 million people still lack access to electricity. Tackling energy poverty requires far more than linking communities to an electric grid. Closing the massive disparity in opportunity for people around the world will require building energy abundance, not just access. Energy is prosperity, and one way to measure it is by the Modern Energy Minimum. Developed by the Energy for Growth Hub, this benchmark posits that a truly modern life requires at least 1,000 kilowatt-hours per person, per year—10 to 20 times the amount typically used to define electricity access.  Here at the Center on Global Energy Policy we're partnering with the Rockefeller Foundation to launch a High-Level Panel on Universal Energy Abundance. The panel is dedicated to providing decision-makers with the insights needed to drive industrialization, job creation, and broad-based prosperity across emerging economies.  So how can we develop and invest in energy infrastructure globally in a way that supports prosperity? What role should governments play? Do the right tools to improve access exist? And how do we navigate the tension between energy growth and climate policy?  Today on the show, Jason speaks with Katie Auth about energy's role in driving lasting economic change and why the modern energy minimum model could produce a meaningfully better standard of living in developing economies. Katie is the deputy executive director at the Energy for Growth Hub, which works to end poverty through sustainable development and climate resilience. She's also a non-resident fellow on US-Africa relations at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a member of the Economic Advisory Council for the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation. Previously, she spent seven years at the U.S. Agency for International Development, including as senior development finance advisor and acting deputy coordinator of Power Africa. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

The war entered a new phase when President Trump began a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains what this means.To manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy