Podcasts about Warsaw Pact

The German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was the frontline in the Cold War, packed with hundreds of thousands of Soviet and East German troops armed with the latest Warsaw Pact equipment, lined up along the 1,400 km Inner German Border. However, because of the repressive East German police state, little human intelligence about these forces reached the West. Who were they? Where were they located? What were they doing? How were they equipped? What were their intentions? NATO was lined up in West Germany to face these forces and relied on getting up-to-date intelligence to warn of any threat, 'Indicators of Hostility' that could be a precursor to an invasion. BRIXMIS, the British Commanders'-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany, was on hand to provide that intelligence. Thanks to an obscure 1946 agreement between the British and Soviets that established 'liaison missions' in their respective zones of occupation, the British were able to send highly qualified military 'observers' into East Germany to roam (relatively) freely and keep an eye on what was going on. What started as 'liaison', a point of contact between the British and Soviet occupation forces, developed into a very sophisticated intelligence gathering operation, sending 'tours' out every day of the year, between 1946 and when the Mission closed in 1990. Andrew Long's BRIXMIS and the Secret Cold War: Intelligence Collection Operations Behind Enemy Lines in East Germany (Pen and Sword History, 2024) tells the story about these top-secret liaison tours.  These tours were undertaken in high-performance, highly modified marked vehicles, with personnel in uniform and unarmed, apart from professional photographic equipment and occasionally some top-secret gadgets from the boffins back in the UK. They joined their French and American colleagues in snooping around the opposition, photographing military bases, equipment, and manoeuvres, and trying to evade capture by the secret police and counterintelligence units. They faced danger and violence daily, but thanks to their bravery and professionalism, the West had accurate and up to date information on what was happening in East Germany which help keep the peace all that time. This is the story of this little-known unit and their exploits behind enemy lines. Andrew Long, from Great Britain, is a military history researcher and author. His fascination with the Cold War began with a trip to West Berlin in 1986, traveling through Checkpoint Charlie to visit the East. Andrew's writing comes from a desire to make sense of an extremely complex period in modern history, weaving together inter-relating stories involving politics, ideologies, personalities, technological advances, and geography. There is still much to be told on this fascinating subject. After a successful career in marketing, Andrew relocated to Cornwall and took up writing full time. Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

The German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was the frontline in the Cold War, packed with hundreds of thousands of Soviet and East German troops armed with the latest Warsaw Pact equipment, lined up along the 1,400 km Inner German Border. However, because of the repressive East German police state, little human intelligence about these forces reached the West. Who were they? Where were they located? What were they doing? How were they equipped? What were their intentions? NATO was lined up in West Germany to face these forces and relied on getting up-to-date intelligence to warn of any threat, 'Indicators of Hostility' that could be a precursor to an invasion. BRIXMIS, the British Commanders'-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany, was on hand to provide that intelligence. Thanks to an obscure 1946 agreement between the British and Soviets that established 'liaison missions' in their respective zones of occupation, the British were able to send highly qualified military 'observers' into East Germany to roam (relatively) freely and keep an eye on what was going on. What started as 'liaison', a point of contact between the British and Soviet occupation forces, developed into a very sophisticated intelligence gathering operation, sending 'tours' out every day of the year, between 1946 and when the Mission closed in 1990. Andrew Long's BRIXMIS and the Secret Cold War: Intelligence Collection Operations Behind Enemy Lines in East Germany (Pen and Sword History, 2024) tells the story about these top-secret liaison tours.  These tours were undertaken in high-performance, highly modified marked vehicles, with personnel in uniform and unarmed, apart from professional photographic equipment and occasionally some top-secret gadgets from the boffins back in the UK. They joined their French and American colleagues in snooping around the opposition, photographing military bases, equipment, and manoeuvres, and trying to evade capture by the secret police and counterintelligence units. They faced danger and violence daily, but thanks to their bravery and professionalism, the West had accurate and up to date information on what was happening in East Germany which help keep the peace all that time. This is the story of this little-known unit and their exploits behind enemy lines. Andrew Long, from Great Britain, is a military history researcher and author. His fascination with the Cold War began with a trip to West Berlin in 1986, traveling through Checkpoint Charlie to visit the East. Andrew's writing comes from a desire to make sense of an extremely complex period in modern history, weaving together inter-relating stories involving politics, ideologies, personalities, technological advances, and geography. There is still much to be told on this fascinating subject. After a successful career in marketing, Andrew relocated to Cornwall and took up writing full time. Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

The German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was the frontline in the Cold War, packed with hundreds of thousands of Soviet and East German troops armed with the latest Warsaw Pact equipment, lined up along the 1,400 km Inner German Border. However, because of the repressive East German police state, little human intelligence about these forces reached the West. Who were they? Where were they located? What were they doing? How were they equipped? What were their intentions? NATO was lined up in West Germany to face these forces and relied on getting up-to-date intelligence to warn of any threat, 'Indicators of Hostility' that could be a precursor to an invasion. BRIXMIS, the British Commanders'-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany, was on hand to provide that intelligence. Thanks to an obscure 1946 agreement between the British and Soviets that established 'liaison missions' in their respective zones of occupation, the British were able to send highly qualified military 'observers' into East Germany to roam (relatively) freely and keep an eye on what was going on. What started as 'liaison', a point of contact between the British and Soviet occupation forces, developed into a very sophisticated intelligence gathering operation, sending 'tours' out every day of the year, between 1946 and when the Mission closed in 1990. Andrew Long's BRIXMIS and the Secret Cold War: Intelligence Collection Operations Behind Enemy Lines in East Germany (Pen and Sword History, 2024) tells the story about these top-secret liaison tours.  These tours were undertaken in high-performance, highly modified marked vehicles, with personnel in uniform and unarmed, apart from professional photographic equipment and occasionally some top-secret gadgets from the boffins back in the UK. They joined their French and American colleagues in snooping around the opposition, photographing military bases, equipment, and manoeuvres, and trying to evade capture by the secret police and counterintelligence units. They faced danger and violence daily, but thanks to their bravery and professionalism, the West had accurate and up to date information on what was happening in East Germany which help keep the peace all that time. This is the story of this little-known unit and their exploits behind enemy lines. Andrew Long, from Great Britain, is a military history researcher and author. His fascination with the Cold War began with a trip to West Berlin in 1986, traveling through Checkpoint Charlie to visit the East. Andrew's writing comes from a desire to make sense of an extremely complex period in modern history, weaving together inter-relating stories involving politics, ideologies, personalities, technological advances, and geography. There is still much to be told on this fascinating subject. After a successful career in marketing, Andrew relocated to Cornwall and took up writing full time. Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. 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

The German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was the frontline in the Cold War, packed with hundreds of thousands of Soviet and East German troops armed with the latest Warsaw Pact equipment, lined up along the 1,400 km Inner German Border. However, because of the repressive East German police state, little human intelligence about these forces reached the West. Who were they? Where were they located? What were they doing? How were they equipped? What were their intentions? NATO was lined up in West Germany to face these forces and relied on getting up-to-date intelligence to warn of any threat, 'Indicators of Hostility' that could be a precursor to an invasion. BRIXMIS, the British Commanders'-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany, was on hand to provide that intelligence. Thanks to an obscure 1946 agreement between the British and Soviets that established 'liaison missions' in their respective zones of occupation, the British were able to send highly qualified military 'observers' into East Germany to roam (relatively) freely and keep an eye on what was going on. What started as 'liaison', a point of contact between the British and Soviet occupation forces, developed into a very sophisticated intelligence gathering operation, sending 'tours' out every day of the year, between 1946 and when the Mission closed in 1990. Andrew Long's BRIXMIS and the Secret Cold War: Intelligence Collection Operations Behind Enemy Lines in East Germany (Pen and Sword History, 2024) tells the story about these top-secret liaison tours.  These tours were undertaken in high-performance, highly modified marked vehicles, with personnel in uniform and unarmed, apart from professional photographic equipment and occasionally some top-secret gadgets from the boffins back in the UK. They joined their French and American colleagues in snooping around the opposition, photographing military bases, equipment, and manoeuvres, and trying to evade capture by the secret police and counterintelligence units. They faced danger and violence daily, but thanks to their bravery and professionalism, the West had accurate and up to date information on what was happening in East Germany which help keep the peace all that time. This is the story of this little-known unit and their exploits behind enemy lines. Andrew Long, from Great Britain, is a military history researcher and author. His fascination with the Cold War began with a trip to West Berlin in 1986, traveling through Checkpoint Charlie to visit the East. Andrew's writing comes from a desire to make sense of an extremely complex period in modern history, weaving together inter-relating stories involving politics, ideologies, personalities, technological advances, and geography. There is still much to be told on this fascinating subject. After a successful career in marketing, Andrew relocated to Cornwall and took up writing full time. Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

The German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was the frontline in the Cold War, packed with hundreds of thousands of Soviet and East German troops armed with the latest Warsaw Pact equipment, lined up along the 1,400 km Inner German Border. However, because of the repressive East German police state, little human intelligence about these forces reached the West. Who were they? Where were they located? What were they doing? How were they equipped? What were their intentions? NATO was lined up in West Germany to face these forces and relied on getting up-to-date intelligence to warn of any threat, 'Indicators of Hostility' that could be a precursor to an invasion. BRIXMIS, the British Commanders'-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany, was on hand to provide that intelligence. Thanks to an obscure 1946 agreement between the British and Soviets that established 'liaison missions' in their respective zones of occupation, the British were able to send highly qualified military 'observers' into East Germany to roam (relatively) freely and keep an eye on what was going on. What started as 'liaison', a point of contact between the British and Soviet occupation forces, developed into a very sophisticated intelligence gathering operation, sending 'tours' out every day of the year, between 1946 and when the Mission closed in 1990. Andrew Long's BRIXMIS and the Secret Cold War: Intelligence Collection Operations Behind Enemy Lines in East Germany (Pen and Sword History, 2024) tells the story about these top-secret liaison tours.  These tours were undertaken in high-performance, highly modified marked vehicles, with personnel in uniform and unarmed, apart from professional photographic equipment and occasionally some top-secret gadgets from the boffins back in the UK. They joined their French and American colleagues in snooping around the opposition, photographing military bases, equipment, and manoeuvres, and trying to evade capture by the secret police and counterintelligence units. They faced danger and violence daily, but thanks to their bravery and professionalism, the West had accurate and up to date information on what was happening in East Germany which help keep the peace all that time. This is the story of this little-known unit and their exploits behind enemy lines. Andrew Long, from Great Britain, is a military history researcher and author. His fascination with the Cold War began with a trip to West Berlin in 1986, traveling through Checkpoint Charlie to visit the East. Andrew's writing comes from a desire to make sense of an extremely complex period in modern history, weaving together inter-relating stories involving politics, ideologies, personalities, technological advances, and geography. There is still much to be told on this fascinating subject. After a successful career in marketing, Andrew relocated to Cornwall and took up writing full time. Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

The German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was the frontline in the Cold War, packed with hundreds of thousands of Soviet and East German troops armed with the latest Warsaw Pact equipment, lined up along the 1,400 km Inner German Border. However, because of the repressive East German police state, little human intelligence about these forces reached the West. Who were they? Where were they located? What were they doing? How were they equipped? What were their intentions? NATO was lined up in West Germany to face these forces and relied on getting up-to-date intelligence to warn of any threat, 'Indicators of Hostility' that could be a precursor to an invasion. BRIXMIS, the British Commanders'-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany, was on hand to provide that intelligence. Thanks to an obscure 1946 agreement between the British and Soviets that established 'liaison missions' in their respective zones of occupation, the British were able to send highly qualified military 'observers' into East Germany to roam (relatively) freely and keep an eye on what was going on. What started as 'liaison', a point of contact between the British and Soviet occupation forces, developed into a very sophisticated intelligence gathering operation, sending 'tours' out every day of the year, between 1946 and when the Mission closed in 1990. Andrew Long's BRIXMIS and the Secret Cold War: Intelligence Collection Operations Behind Enemy Lines in East Germany (Pen and Sword History, 2024) tells the story about these top-secret liaison tours.  These tours were undertaken in high-performance, highly modified marked vehicles, with personnel in uniform and unarmed, apart from professional photographic equipment and occasionally some top-secret gadgets from the boffins back in the UK. They joined their French and American colleagues in snooping around the opposition, photographing military bases, equipment, and manoeuvres, and trying to evade capture by the secret police and counterintelligence units. They faced danger and violence daily, but thanks to their bravery and professionalism, the West had accurate and up to date information on what was happening in East Germany which help keep the peace all that time. This is the story of this little-known unit and their exploits behind enemy lines. Andrew Long, from Great Britain, is a military history researcher and author. His fascination with the Cold War began with a trip to West Berlin in 1986, traveling through Checkpoint Charlie to visit the East. Andrew's writing comes from a desire to make sense of an extremely complex period in modern history, weaving together inter-relating stories involving politics, ideologies, personalities, technological advances, and geography. There is still much to be told on this fascinating subject. After a successful career in marketing, Andrew relocated to Cornwall and took up writing full time. Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

The German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was the frontline in the Cold War, packed with hundreds of thousands of Soviet and East German troops armed with the latest Warsaw Pact equipment, lined up along the 1,400 km Inner German Border. However, because of the repressive East German police state, little human intelligence about these forces reached the West. Who were they? Where were they located? What were they doing? How were they equipped? What were their intentions? NATO was lined up in West Germany to face these forces and relied on getting up-to-date intelligence to warn of any threat, 'Indicators of Hostility' that could be a precursor to an invasion. BRIXMIS, the British Commanders'-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany, was on hand to provide that intelligence. Thanks to an obscure 1946 agreement between the British and Soviets that established 'liaison missions' in their respective zones of occupation, the British were able to send highly qualified military 'observers' into East Germany to roam (relatively) freely and keep an eye on what was going on. What started as 'liaison', a point of contact between the British and Soviet occupation forces, developed into a very sophisticated intelligence gathering operation, sending 'tours' out every day of the year, between 1946 and when the Mission closed in 1990. Andrew Long's BRIXMIS and the Secret Cold War: Intelligence Collection Operations Behind Enemy Lines in East Germany (Pen and Sword History, 2024) tells the story about these top-secret liaison tours.  These tours were undertaken in high-performance, highly modified marked vehicles, with personnel in uniform and unarmed, apart from professional photographic equipment and occasionally some top-secret gadgets from the boffins back in the UK. They joined their French and American colleagues in snooping around the opposition, photographing military bases, equipment, and manoeuvres, and trying to evade capture by the secret police and counterintelligence units. They faced danger and violence daily, but thanks to their bravery and professionalism, the West had accurate and up to date information on what was happening in East Germany which help keep the peace all that time. This is the story of this little-known unit and their exploits behind enemy lines. Andrew Long, from Great Britain, is a military history researcher and author. His fascination with the Cold War began with a trip to West Berlin in 1986, traveling through Checkpoint Charlie to visit the East. Andrew's writing comes from a desire to make sense of an extremely complex period in modern history, weaving together inter-relating stories involving politics, ideologies, personalities, technological advances, and geography. There is still much to be told on this fascinating subject. After a successful career in marketing, Andrew relocated to Cornwall and took up writing full time. Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

This Day in Legal History: Warsaw Pact States Join NATOOn March 12, 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland became the first former Warsaw Pact countries to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This historic moment marked a significant shift in the post-Cold War security landscape, as these nations formally aligned with the Western military alliance nearly a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their accession symbolized a decisive break from their communist past and reinforced their commitment to democratic governance, rule of law, and collective defense.The expansion was not without controversy. Russia viewed NATO's eastward growth as a threat to its sphere of influence, deepening tensions that would continue into the 21st century. However, for the newly admitted countries, NATO membership provided critical security assurances against potential aggression, particularly given their historical experiences with Soviet domination. The accession process required extensive military and political reforms, ensuring that these nations met NATO's standards for democracy, civilian control of the military, and defense readiness.The inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland set the stage for further NATO enlargement, with additional Eastern European countries joining in subsequent years. It also reinforced NATO's role as a stabilizing force in Europe during a period of geopolitical uncertainty. The decision underscored the alliance's post-Cold War mission of promoting security and democracy beyond its original Western European membership. Today, this expansion remains a key milestone in the ongoing debate over NATO's role in global security and its relationship with Russia.The removal of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger has raised concerns about the politicization of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent agency that protects federal whistleblowers. Dellinger, who was dismissed by President Trump without explanation, initially challenged his firing but later withdrew his case after a federal appellate court sided with the administration. His removal highlights the administration's broader efforts to exert control over independent agencies, a move that legal experts warn could undermine their impartiality.During his tenure, Dellinger was an advocate for federal workers, helping reinstate over 5,000 Department of Agriculture employees who were improperly fired. His dismissal is expected to weaken the OSC's role in protecting workers from political retaliation. Legal scholars suggest that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the precedent set by his firing could give future presidents greater authority over independent agencies.The case also ties into a broader legal battle over presidential power, as courts are reviewing Trump's terminations of other agency officials, including members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While Dellinger had legal grounds to challenge his firing, he strategically chose not to pursue the case, allowing stronger challenges—such as that of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox—to take precedence.The legal debate is moving toward a potential Supreme Court review of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that limits the president's power to remove independent agency officials. If overturned, the ruling could significantly expand presidential authority over such agencies.Dellinger Exit Deepens OSC Politicization as Workers Lose AllyA U.S. judge will hold a hearing on Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil's challenge to his arrest by immigration authorities, a case that has sparked protests and political debate. Khalil, a Palestinian student and U.S. permanent resident, was arrested outside his university residence by Homeland Security agents. The Trump administration has accused him—without providing any evidence—of supporting Hamas, though Khalil has not been charged with any crime.Judge Jesse Furman has temporarily blocked Khalil's deportation and may order his release if his rights were violated. However, an immigration court—not Furman—would ultimately decide whether Khalil can be deported, a process that could take years. Khalil's lawyers argue that his arrest is political retaliation for his pro-Palestinian activism and violates his First Amendment rights. His detention in Louisiana has limited his legal access, and his wife, who is eight months pregnant, has spoken out against his treatment.The case raises broader legal questions about the intersection of free speech and immigration law, particularly as Trump has vowed to deport foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Khalil's arrest has triggered demonstrations and condemnation from Democratic lawmakers, who view it as political repression.Judge to hold hearing over Columbia student protester's challenge to arrest | ReutersA major real estate brokerage, Howard Hanna Real Estate Services, has asked a U.S. judge in Missouri to recuse himself from an antitrust lawsuit due to political donations made to his wife's campaign by the plaintiffs' lawyers. The lawsuit accuses brokerages of conspiring to inflate real estate commissions, and plaintiffs have already won significant settlements in related cases.Howard Hanna argues that the donations create an appearance of impropriety, requiring Judge Stephen Bough's recusal under ethics rules. Bough had previously disclosed the donations and offered to step down in an earlier case, but no party requested his removal at the time. Plaintiffs' lawyer Michael Ketchmark dismissed the recusal request as meritless and a delay tactic after Howard Hanna had lost key motions.Bough's courtroom previously hosted a landmark jury verdict in a related antitrust case, leading to over a billion dollars in settlements with brokerages and the National Association of Realtors. The judge's decision on whether to step aside could impact the trajectory of ongoing real estate antitrust litigation.US judge in brokerage antitrust case faces recusal bid over political donations | ReutersNew Jersey is poised to increase its angel investor tax credit (AITC) from 20% to 35% of investment costs, with a $35 million annual cap. Given the limited funds, ensuring the credit is effectively allocated is essential. However, the proposed bill includes “carbon footprint reduction technology” as an eligible category, which could allow carbon capture projects to qualify. Critics argue that carbon capture is neither emerging nor effective—it is costly, inefficient, and largely benefits fossil fuel companies by prolonging their operations rather than reducing emissions.Instead of funding speculative or ineffective technologies, the state should prioritize investments in proven decarbonization strategies like renewable energy, battery storage, and energy efficiency improvements. These sectors have demonstrated cost savings, emissions reductions, and job creation without the need for indefinite subsidies. Tightening the AITC eligibility criteria would prevent resources from being diverted to projects with questionable climate benefits.By refining its definition of eligible technologies, New Jersey can maximize the impact of its tax credit, ensuring funds support tangible climate and economic progress. States that design smart, targeted incentives will attract startups and clean energy investments, while those that fund vague or ineffective projects risk falling behind. As federal climate incentives remain uncertain, state policies will play a crucial role in shaping the future of clean energy investment.New Jersey Should Tighten Its Angel Investor Credit Eligibility This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Dr. Heather Wilson, a 1982 Air Force Academy graduate, formerly the 24th Secretary of the Air Force, and first USAFA graduate to hold the position, discusses her unexpected journey to the role, emphasizing the importance of integrity, service, and leadership. ----more---- SUMMARY Dr. Wilson shares her unexpected journey into leadership, the importance of integrity, and the lessons learned from both successes and failures. She reflects on her family legacy, the influence of mentors, and how her military background shaped her leadership style. Dr. Wilson emphasizes the value of collecting tools for leadership and adapting to different environments while maintaining core values. In this conversation, she discusses the importance of finding purpose in one's mission and the value of relationships, particularly family support. She reflects on her journey as a woman in leadership, the significance of legacy in public service, and her unexpected path to serving in Congress. Dr. Wilson emphasizes the lessons learned in collaboration and the importance of humor in leadership, ultimately encouraging future leaders to uphold high standards and not to shame their families.   SHARE THIS EPISODE LINKEDIN | FACEBOOK   TAKEAWAYS Dr. Wilson's journey to becoming Secretary of the Air Force was unexpected and transformative. Leadership often requires owning failures and focusing on solutions. Integrity is foundational to effective leadership and builds trust. Adapting leadership styles to different cultures is essential for success. Mentorship and influences from family play a significant role in shaping leaders. Collecting tools and knowledge is crucial for effective leadership. Quality management principles can be applied to various fields, including education and social services. Leadership is not linear; it involves navigating different paths and chapters. Building strong teams and hiring the right people is vital for organizational success. Direct communication and honesty are key components of effective leadership. Doing things that matter with people you like is essential. The most important decision in life can be personal, like choosing a partner. Family support enriches life and provides joy. Women in leadership often face unique challenges but can pave the way for others. Legacy is about making lasting changes in systems and strategies. Unexpected opportunities can lead to significant career changes. Collaboration and giving credit to others is key in leadership roles. Humor can help create a relaxed atmosphere in serious environments. Education is crucial for transforming lives and communities. Leadership is not always a straight path; adaptability is important.   EPISODE CHAPTERS 00:00  Introduction to Long Blue Leadership 01:25  Unexpected Call to Leadership 03:16  Lessons from Leadership Challenges 08:28  The Importance of Integrity 10:07  Adapting Leadership Styles 12:23  Influences and Mentorship 15:25  Family Legacy and Influence 17:41  Learning from Team Members 21:29  Applying Quality Management Principles 24:07  Navigating Non-Linear Leadership Paths 24:20  Finding Purpose in Mission and Relationships 28:06  The Importance of Family Support 30:08  Navigating Leadership as a Woman 34:30  Legacy and Impact in Public Service 36:29  Unexpected Paths: Serving in Congress 41:03  Lessons in Collaboration and Leadership   ABOUT DR. WILSON - IMAGES AND BIO COURTESY OF UTEP BIO Dr. Heather Wilson became the 11th President of The University of Texas at El Paso in 2019 after serving as Secretary of the United States Air Force. She is the former president of the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, and she represented New Mexico in the United States Congress for 10 years.  Active in community and national affairs, she is a member of the National Science Board, which oversees the National Science Foundation, and serves as a board member of the Texas Space Commission. She was the inaugural Chair of the Alliance of Hispanic Serving Research Universities, and is a member of the board of directors of Lockheed Martin Corporation. Dr. Wilson is the granddaughter of immigrants and was the first person in her family to go to college. She graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in the third class to admit women and earned her master's and doctoral degrees from Oxford University in England as a Rhodes Scholar. UTEP is located on the U.S.-Mexico border – in the fifth largest manufacturing region in North America – and serves over 24,000 students with 170 bachelor's, master's and doctoral degree programs in nine colleges and schools. In the top 5% of public universities in the United States for research and designated a community-engaged university by the Carnegie Foundation, UTEP is America's leading Hispanic-serving university. It is the fourth largest research university in Texas and serves a student body that is 84% Hispanic. President Wilson is an instrument rated private pilot. She and her husband, Jay Hone, have two adult children and two granddaughters. Dr. Heather Wilson served as the 24th Secretary of the Air Force and was responsible for the affairs of the Department of the Air Force, including the organizing, training and equipping and providing for the welfare of 660,000 Active-Duty, Guard, Reserve and civilian forces their families. She provided oversight of the Air Force's annual budget of more than $132 billion and directs strategy and policy development, risk management, weapons acquisition, technology investments and human resource management across a global enterprise. Dr. Wilson has more than 35 years of professional experience in a range of leadership and management roles in the military, higher education, government and private industry. Before assuming her current position, Dr. Wilson was president of the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, an engineering and science research university. From 1998 to 2009, Dr. Wilson was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where she served on the House Armed Services Committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Before being elected to Congress, Dr. Wilson was a cabinet secretary in New Mexico's state government responsible for foster care, adoption, juvenile delinquency, children's mental health and early childhood education. From 1989 to 1991 Wilson served on the National Security Council staff as director for defense policy and arms control for President George H.W. Bush during the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. From 1991 to1995 and again from 2009 to 2013 Wilson was in the private sector. In 1991, she founded Keystone International, Inc., a company that did business development and program planning work for defense and scientific industry. She served as a senior advisor to several national laboratories on matters related to nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, arms control verification, intelligence and the defense industrial base. Wilson also served on the boards of two publicly traded corporations as well as numerous advisory and non-profit boards.   CONNECT WITH DR. WILSON LINKEDIN  |  UTEP     ALL PAST LBL EPISODES  |  ALL LBLPN PRODUCTIONS AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PODCAST PLATFORMS     FULL TRANSCRIPT SPEAKERS Guest:  Dr. Heather Wilson '82  |  Hosts:  Lt. Col. (Ret.) Naviere Walkewicz '99   Naviere Walkewicz  00:00 Welcome to Long Blue Leadership, the podcast where we share insights on leadership through the lives and experiences of Air Force Academy graduates. I'm Naviere Walkowicz, Class of '99. Our story is about a leader who reached heights fellow Air Force Academy graduates had not reached before her, and this was at a time when opportunities to do so were still new. My guest is Dr. Heather Wilson, Class of '82. As you heard, she served as the 24th secretary of the Air Force, but there is a unique distinction attached to that. Dr Wilson, welcome to Long Blue Leadership; we have much to discuss. Let's start with you becoming the secretary of the Air Force, our 24th.   Dr. Heather Wilson  00:37 Yeah, that wasn't part of my life's plan. Secretary Designate Mattis did call me. I was in South Dakota as the president of the South Dakota School of Mines and my cell phone rang and he said, “This is Jim Mattis, and I want to talk to you about becoming secretary of the Air Force.” And honest to goodness, my initial answer was, “Sir, you do know that being a college president is like the best job in America, right?” And he said, “Yeah, I know. I just came from Stanford.” And I said, “I didn't apply for any job. I mean, I like it out... I'm a gal of the West. I like the mountains. I like hiking and biking and fly fishing.” And he said, “Yeah, I know. I grew up on the Columbia River in Washington.” And I thought, “This isn't working,” but we talked several more times, and it was pretty clear that I was being called to serve in a way that I didn't anticipate, but that was what I was supposed to do.   Naviere Walkewicz  01:35 What a transformative moment in your life, I'm sure.   Dr. Heather Wilson  01:38 Well, it was. Again, my entire life, I think, is a diversion from its planned course. But I turned out — I didn't anticipate that, and it meant — my husband doesn't really much like big East Coast cities that rain a lot and have a lot of traffic, and so from a family point of view, it wasn't what we personally wanted to do, but you're called to serve. And we've been called to serve in different ways in our lives and sometimes, even if it feels inconvenient, you're still called to serve. It turned out to be wonderful and I really enjoyed the experience, both of working with Sec. Mattis, but also getting back to spending time with airmen. And so it turned out to be wonderful, but it wasn't what I expected.   Naviere Walkewicz  02:25 Well, you said it, ma'am. As we know, service and leadership aren't linear, and so we're really excited to dive into some of those experiences today. Maybe share, as secretary of the Air Force, some of those moments in leadership that stuck with you. Let's just kind of start there.   Dr. Heather Wilson  02:42 Certainly. There were good days and not so good days. I think one of the things that I really benefited from was that I had a partner in the chief of staff, Dave Goldfein, who was absolutely fantastic. And we've remained very close friends. We started at the Academy the same day and he would joke and tell people that we didn't graduate on the same day because he went stop-out for a year. But we didn't know each other well as cadets, but we were formed by some of the same experiences and I think that helped tremendously. I didn't really understand that in our system of government, the civilian secretary has almost all the authority, but the chief of staff has almost all of the influence. And if you can figure out how to work together, you can get a heck of a lot done. And Dave and I both had that same approach, and it turned out to be a great partnership.   Naviere Walkewicz  03:42 That's pretty incredible. In fact, the time of your service in that role, I was actually working under your umbrella at U.S. STRATCOM. I was at Strategic Command there as a government civilian and as a reservist. And so, I can certainly speak to, I think, some of the amazing things that you did. Can you share a little — you talked about some ups and downs. What was maybe one of the failures as secretary of the Air Force that you learned from that helped you throughout your life?   Dr. Heather Wilson  04:11 Well, I know the day. I think it was Nov. 5, 2017, and it was a Sunday, late morning or early afternoon, and my phone rang. I was upstairs in the study in my row house in Virginia and it was the inspector general, Gen. Syed. And that morning, a young man had walked into a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and opened fire and killed a lot of people, and it turned out he had been an airman, and the general said, “You know, we're not sure yet, but he may have been convicted of a crime that would have required us to tell the FBI and the national criminal records check system that he had committed a crime that would not allow him to purchase a weapon, but we may have failed to notify.” We didn't know, we wouldn't know that afternoon but I talked to the chief and we all got together on Monday morning at 9 a.m. and Gen. Syed confirmed that he was an airman, he had been convicted of a domestic violence-related crime, and we had not properly notified the FBI, and as a result, he had been able to buy a weapon. Um, that was not a good day. And we talked about what we should do next, and our general counsel wasn't there — he was traveling that morning, but a more junior lawyer was there, who suggested kind of — and, you know, other people said, well — it actually got worse because there was an IG investigation, an internal audit from several years before, that showed that all of the services were not properly reporting to the national criminal records system. So we hadn't fixed the problem. We knew; we had been informed there was a problem and hadn't fixed it. And some people said, “Well, you weren't here at the time.” That doesn't matter. You wear the uniform, or you wear the cloak of office, and you have to take responsibility for the institution. And of course, the lawyers would say, “Well, you know, maybe you want to fuzz this and not take — you know, there's investigation going on,” or something. But we knew enough of the facts that morning, Monday morning, and Dave Goldfein and I decided to own it, to own the failure and focus on fixing the problem. And we did. And in the short term that was very uncomfortable. We sat in front of the Pentagon press corps and took their questions, and we went to Capitol Hill and informed the members of Congress on what had been done and not been done and why. But in the long term, by owning failure, we were able to focus on fixing the problem rather than just trying to manage responsibility and accountability, and it turned out to be a much better approach. So, sometimes the most important lesson is to own failure.   Naviere Walkewicz 07:09 I'm so glad you shared that, ma'am, because I think some people have a fear of failure, but there are many times when failure is inevitable, and to your point, owning it is the right approach. Something you said when you're sharing that, it made me think about us as cadets and our core values: integrity first. And that really resonated with how your approach was. Would you say that was born for you at the Academy and kind of through your career that's where it stayed, or has that always been part of your fabric?   Dr. Heather Wilson  07:36 I think the Academy was absolutely formative in that way, in the Honor Code. And, you know, integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do, now replaces what was there when I was a cadet, over the archway there. But I think that's woven into the fabric for airmen, and it's part of our culture, and it drives you. And I think — you know now we look at, how do we evaluate officers? It's the same way I now evaluate leaders — any leaders that work with me — and it's the way I evaluate myself: accomplish the mission, lead people, manage resources and make your unit better, all on a foundation of values. But it's that last part of it: all on a foundation of values. If you don't have that, the rest of it almost doesn't matter. You can try to make your unit better, but if you're lying about it, nobody's going to trust you. If you're leading people and managing resources, but you don't have integrity, it doesn't matter. So, integrity first, and that commitment to trying to be honest and direct with people builds those relationships of trust, which lasts for decades throughout a career.   Naviere Walkewicz  08:53 Absolutely. And the key word, I think, that foundation you talked about — how has that foundation served you in leadership as you've explored other areas outside of the military, amazing roles leading UTEP, also at the South Dakota School of Mines, in higher education? I'm sure that there's a translation of what that looks like. Can you share maybe an example of how that came into play?   Dr. Heather Wilson  09:15 Sure, it happens all the time. I think in any leadership position, whether you're in corporate life, in community life and a nonprofit, or in higher education, leading with a foundation of values, being honest, complying with the law, following the rules or changing the rules. It doesn't mean — that's one of the things that I think is probably important for leaders. You get to a point as a leader where your job is not just to follow the rules, but to look at the systems and identify the rules that need to be changed, but to be direct and honest about that too. Where it's not “Well, I think this rule doesn't make any sense, so I'm going to skirt it,” or “I'm not going to tell people that I've complied with something and I haven't.” In fact, you know that happened to me this morning. I got a disclosure that I was supposed to sign for a report that was published yesterday to the director of National Intelligence on a committee that I serve on, and they sent this kind of notification on what you can talk about publicly, and all of those things, and I hadn't given up my right to speak publicly about unclassified matters, and I responded, “I understand what you've said. I want to let you know that this is how I interpret this, and this is the way I'm going to act.” I was very direct about it. “I didn't give up my First Amendment rights as a citizen because I worked on your task force.” So, very direct. And I think that directness is something that — not all cultures are that way, including higher education culture. I have to be a little bit careful about that sometimes — the airman's tendency to have a frank debrief isn't always the way other cultures and work cultures are. They're just not always like that, so, I have to be a little bit careful sometimes that I don't crush people's will to live or something.   Naviere Walkewicz  11:13 I was actually thinking about that as you were speaking how, if you have the foundation, especially from the military, we kind of understand that directive approach and certainly those core values that we know of. And I'm curious, how do you adapt as a leader to those who maybe don't have that foundation? How do you bring them up to speed and kind of help them establish that?   Dr. Heather Wilson  11:32 Well, it's a two-way street. It means that I have to understand the culture that I'm in and the way in which I talk with senior faculty may be slightly different than the way I might talk to somebody who just got off a flight line and was too low and slow on final or something, you know? But at the same time with both a sense of humor and a little bit of grace… It was really funny when I was at South Dakota Mines, my provost was a long-time academic. And of course, I had served in Congress for 10 years as well. And he once said something to me that just made me crack up. He said, “You know, you are the least political president I've ever worked with. And the funny thing is, you're the only one that was really a politician.” And he said, “You remind me more of a military officer.” And I thought, “Yeah, that's probably true.” But I was fairly direct as a member of Congress as well. And so, I've just found that that works better for me in life, I guess.   Naviere Walkewicz  12:37 You were sharing how, you know, I think it was the provost that said that you really didn't remind him as someone that was very political, even though you're the only politician he's known. And so what was your time like serving in Congress? I mean, that's 10 years you did, I think, correct?   Dr. Heather Wilson  12:52 I did. And again, I didn't expect to serve in Congress. My predecessor became very seriously ill shortly before the filing deadline for the election that happened in 1998, and my phone rang. It was a Thursday night. This happens to me. I don't know why, but it was a Thursday night, and my phone rang. I was working in Santa Fe, cabinet secretary for Child Welfare, and it was Sen. Pete Domenici, the senior senator for the state of New Mexico. And he said, “You don't know anything about this, but I'm coming to New Mexico this weekend, and I want to talk to you about running for Congress.” Well, that's a quiz; that's not a question. Because a quiz has a right answer, which is, “Sir, I'd be happy to talk to you about whatever you want to talk about.” He's a United States senator. So, we talked about all kinds of things, and he called me from the airport when he was heading back to Washington that Sunday night, and he said, “Look, if you will run, I will help you.” And I decided to run. It was eight days before the filing deadline. I talked to my predecessor — he was fighting skin cancer — and said, “Look, why don't you just focus on fighting cancer? Two years from now, if you want to run again, you can have this seat back. I'll try to do my best for the next two years.” And then 30 days later, he died. I mean, you're not supposed to die of skin cancer. And so, I ended up serving for 10 years in the Congress in a very difficult swing district that I probably shouldn't have won in the first place. But I enjoyed the service part of it. I enjoyed the policy work part of it — intellectually challenging. Some of the partisan silliness I didn't like very much. And then when I left the Congress, ran on successfully for the Senate and became a university president. One of the great things — I tell people now that I was released from Congress early for good behavior. But it was nice to be in a town where people were waving at me with all five fingers. I mean, it was wonderful. So, I enjoyed the service, and I enjoyed a lot helping people — doing casework and things. But it was also a little bit less of a partisan time where you could try to listen and learn and serve well and try to serve your constituents without just being under attack mercilessly and in social media, or something. It was maybe perhaps a different age.   Naviere Walkewicz  15:25 Well, I chuckled when you said waving with all five fingers. That got a good one out of me. I thought about when you're in that, because that wasn't something you were looking to do, and this seems to be a bit of a theme in your leadership trajectory as well. You've kind of been tapped on the shoulder, and you know, for the ones that you didn't apply for or run for, plan for, have been such transformative positions in your life.   Dr. Heather Wilson  15:50 Yeah, and I think maybe that happens to people more than we might acknowledge, because when we're planning our lives, we think we know what's going to happen, but in reality, we adapt to situations that develop and opportunities open that you didn't know were there or someone asked you to take on a special project and that leads you in a direction that you didn't anticipate. So while mine seem particularly unusual in these very different chapters of my life, I don't think it's all that unusual. We just look forward and project in straight lines, and when we look backward, we tell a story in a narrative and it's not always a straight line. But I've been blessed to be asked to do some things. And perhaps in our relationship, my husband and I, he doesn't like change. I love it, and so in our relationship, he's kind of the keel and I'm kind of the sail, and together, we go places.   Naviere Walkewicz  16:56 That's awesome. And I think that particular time and journey in your career serving in Congress was probably one that you established new tools in your leadership toolbox. Were there any that particularly stood out — moments, either when you were having to, you know, forge new policy or achieve things that you hadn't prior? Because Congress is a kind of different machine.   Dr. Heather Wilson  17:21 Yeah, it's a very big committee, and it's not executive leadership. And so I'm probably more predisposed to executive leadership than just being on committees. It takes a very long time to get anything done in Congress, and our government is intentionally designed that way to protect us from tyranny. So you have to take that philosophical approach to it, even if you're frustrated day to day. I did learn how to get things done by giving other people credit. And there were several times — the changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is probably one example — where I had sponsored legislation in the House. It had taken quite a bit of time — changing Congress. There were continued problems, and I went to others and tried to put them in positions of leadership and support them. And ultimately, it was a Senate bill that passed, but which had been shaped in the background by multiple people, including me, and I was OK with that. And the same thing happened on pieces of legislation about public lands in New Mexico. I remember I came out in favor of doing something in northern New Mexico with respect to some public lands, and I got out ahead of Pete Domenici and he was not happy about that. He was very clear about not being happy about getting a little bit ahead of him on it. But in the end, the piece of legislation there that was signed, and another one on Zia Pueblo were Senate bills. They weren't House bills. But I had moved things forward on the House side, and it didn't matter to me that that it said “S” rather than “H” in front of the name of the bill. So as long as you don't really care about who gets the credit, you can get a lot done in the Congress.   Naviere Walkewicz  19:11 That is a powerful lesson. And somewhere in the back of my mind, I think there's a Contrails quote, and I can't remember all of it, but I remember the end of it is, “…if you don't care who gets the credit.”   Dr. Heather Wilson  19:11 Yeah, that was probably one of the short ones. Schofield's quote was — we all did pushups for those.   Naviere Walkewicz  19:30 Yes, I had a starting moment. I was about to get down…   Dr. Heather Wilson  19:35 … and start to sweat…   Naviere Walkewicz  19:37 … and take my punishment. That was wonderful, ma'am. I'm glad we actually went back and did that journey.   Dr. Heather Wilson  19:42 When I think about my service in the Congress, where I made the most difference, it was in committee work, and particularly on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where I served for a significant amount of time, including post-9/11. And I think that work, because the Intelligence Committee, most of it is in private, it's dealing with really hard, really important issues, and you don't bring your staff there. You have to do the work. And I think probably that's where I did some of my most important work as a member of Congress, was in Intelligence.   Naviere Walkewicz  20:18 Thank you for sharing that. Who are some other influencers, some key influencers in your life, that have maybe walked alongside you or helped you in these different roles that you've carried in your amazing career.   Dr. Heather Wilson  20:31 Oh, they're different people at different times, but certainly as a young person, my grandfather was very important to me. My grandfather had been one of the first flyers in the RAF in World War I, and then came to America in 1922 and flew in the Second World War for what became the Civil Air Patrol. So he did sub search off the Atlantic coast, and varied parts, around to bases, in New England. So, he was important to me as a child. My dad died when I was young. My dad also had been enlisted in the Air Force. He was a crew chief and also a pilot, commercial pilot, after he got out of the service. So I grew up around airplanes and my grandfather was very important to me, and there were other people along the way. When I was a cadet, there was a group commander, Lieutenant Colonel — it's funny, you still remember… anyone who remembers my middle initial, I know it's like, “Oh, this may not be good,” but Robert L. Rame, Lt. Col. Robert L. Rame was the 4th Group commander and my first Air Officer Commanding. General — sorry, Maj. William S. Reeder. He was an Army officer and had been a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Really, I was terrified of disappointing him. It's funny, I just got a Christmas card from him. Life's long, right?   Naviere Walkewicz  21:53 Wow. What connections. I'd like to kind of go back a little bit to your grandfather. You said he was really important to you in your life. Can you share maybe some of the ways he influenced you? Obviously, you're third-generation aviator in your family. Is that how you knew you're going to go into service?   Dr. Heather Wilson  22:08 Well, the Academy wasn't an option until I was a junior in high school, and so I knew I was going to college, but I didn't really think about where. And then they opened the Air Force Academy to women when I was a junior in high school. So, my grandfather had two sons, and he had five grandsons, and me. But he was pretty — I would say — the way he might say it is he was pretty sweet on me; he and I were very close. We used to play chess after school when I was in high school, and I remember once we just finished playing chess, and I was a senior in high school — so, my grandfather was an aviator; he was also a mechanic. He could use any tool, I mean, he was just amazing with his hands. And I had learned a new tool in school, and I took out a piece of graph paper and I drew a drew a curve, and I said, “Grandpa, do you think you could find the area under this curve?” And he said, “Well, I'd probably count up the squares and estimate from there on the graph paper.” And I then I showed him something new and it was called calculus, and it was the first time in my life that I realized I had a tool that my grandfather didn't have. He had a high school education and had gone into the RAF during the First World War, and he was a great mechanic and a really good man, but I realized that there were opportunities for me that maybe my grandfather never had.   Naviere Walkewicz  23:56 I actually got chill bumps when you shared that. Pretty powerful. Thank you so much. Can you talk about, throughout your career — you said if people remember your middle initial, and I'm sure that many on the military side would, because you're amazing… Have you learned from anyone maybe that is not a mentor of you, but someone that has kind of come under your wing? Can you share some leadership lessons that you've learned from those serving alongside and under you?   Dr. Heather Wilson  24:24 Oh my gosh, I learn stuff every day from the people whom I'm privileged to work with. And one of the things that I learned over time was, and as you get more senior, the most important thing you do as a senior leader is hire good people who know things that you don't know, because it's not possible to know everything you need to know to lead a large organization. So, you have to organize yourself well and then get great people and let them do their job. So, I learn things every day. I was interviewing somebody yesterday that we're trying to attract to come to the university who is on the communication side of things — marketing and communication and branding. And you know that creative, visual side of my brain, if you did a brain scan, it would be like a dark hole. That's not a strength of mine. And so those kinds of things are — you have to realize what your strengths are, and then to fill in the team and put together a team, which together can accomplish the mission.   Naviere Walkewicz  25:34 I'd say your grandfather is still kind of, you know, influencing that. It's almost like you're filling your toolbox with all those areas.   Dr. Heather Wilson  25:43 That's funny you use that word. I've told this story before, but my father was both a pilot and a mechanic, and he built an experimental aircraft in our house, and we lived on this, kind of the last house that they would plow to on the end of the road in the winter, right? So, in a very small town, and at that time, there were still traveling salesmen, and the Snap-on tools guy would come probably every six weeks or so, and he had this, like red truck with an accordion thing on the back that looked just like the toolbox in the corner of the garage, right? And we knew that when the Snap-on tools guy came, do not go out. I mean, it was like Christmas for my dad. Do not interfere when the Snap-on tools guy is there. And so he'd go out and lean against the truck, and we could see him laughing and stuff. And eventually my dad would reach in his pocket and pull out his billfold and give the guy a bill, and he'd go back, and he'd lift up the back of the accordion thing and reach in there and give my dad a tool. And my dad would — then the truck would back out, and go on to his next stop. But my dad would take that tool and we'd scramble into the garage to see what he got and stuff. And my dad would usually put that tool in the box in the corner and then go back to what he was doing that day, working on his car or whatever he was doing. And it occurred to me that my dad didn't need that tool that day, but he collected tools, and someday he'd need that tool. And I think great leaders collect tools even when they don't need them today, because they're going to be times when you bring everybody to — you know, there's that great scene in Apollo 13, but it happens around the staff and Cabinet table, and it'll happen in your planning room as a pilot where you've got a new problem, and everybody brings in their tools and says, “OK, how can we make a carbon monoxide filter, or carbon dioxide filter, out of what we've got here on the table?” So, collect tools. And I think that's one of the things I learned from my dad.     Naviere Walkewicz  28:00 Oh, that is an amazing story. Can you share maybe a tool that you've had in your toolbox, that you learned way back when, maybe at the Academy, or as a young girl, that you've recently pulled out and used?   Dr. Heather Wilson 28:12 Well, one of them — I'm not so sure it's recent, but when I was a small business owner, there was a group in New Mexico called Quality New Mexico, and they taught small business owners the Baldrige Principles for quality management. And then I ended up being the Cabinet secretary for child welfare in New Mexico. So, I took over a foster care system, which was under a federal consent decree for not getting kids forever homes and an overly crowded juvenile justice system. I mean, every intractable social problem was — I realized after a while why I became Cabinet secretary for child welfare, because nobody else wanted that job. I mean it was a really difficult job, but I had these tools on quality management. I thought, “I think we can apply these same principles to improving foster care, to improving the juvenile justice system.” And so we did, and there's some things I was proud of there, but one of my last acts as Cabinet secretary before I ended up leaving and running for Congress was to sign the end of the federal consent decree that had been in place for 18 years that said that the state was not getting foster kids forever homes. We changed the system, but we did it using those quality management principles, which I had learned as a small business owner almost as a lark. So, there's one example. But, you know, we just went through a global pandemic. It was very much a pickup game. Nobody had ever been through that. So, we all got together and figured out how we could use the tools we had, including the research capability on my campus to be able to sequence DNA so that we could do testing on campus and get the results, ultimately, within six hours and then feed that back so we could detect disease before someone was symptomatic, so you could suppress disease on campus for those who had to be on campus. There's some things you can't do remotely. And so, we had our own testing system on campus, which was remarkable. Well, why'd we have that? Because we had some tools in the box.   Naviere Walkewicz  30:37 Well, you've used those tools amazingly as you've navigated your career. How would you say that — because yours is… we talked about not being linear. It's kind of been multiple paths and…   Dr. Heather Wilson 30:50 Different chapters.   Naviere Walkewicz 30:51 Yes, I love that. Different chapters. How would you say that you've navigated leadership through that? And has there been a thread that's been common through all those different chapters that you've…   Dr. Heather Wilson  31:04 Yeah, we talked a little about integrity, and that certainly is there. But I when, when people say things like, you know, “Why are you at UTEP?” Or, “Why did you shift to higher ed?” Or, “Why did…” The mission matters so developing people matters. Defending the country matters. So, a mission that matters with people I like. And I realized that when you get down to it, you should do things that matter with people you like and if that's your filter, as long as you can put food on the table, there's a lot of different things you can do, but it should be something that matters with people you like. Otherwise, that time between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. can seem forever unless you're doing something you like.   Naviere Walkewicz  31:49 That is a powerful thread. Mission matters with people you like. How has your family supported you through this?   Dr. Heather Wilson  31:56 I live a blessed life. I tell this to students, and probably, as a younger woman, I wouldn't have said these things because I was so focused on being taken seriously, I suppose. But, I lightened up after time and realized, OK, I'm probably too serious. But the most important decision I've made in my life is not to go to the Academy or to run for Congress or to become a college president — none of those things are the most important decision I've made in my life. The most important decision I made in my life was to marry the guy I married. I married a guy who's actually retired Air Force now, but he was a lawyer. Despite that, he's a nice guy and sometimes, I think, particularly for women, there's always that fear that you're going to sit down when you're in a getting into a serious relationship, and it's going to be one of those conversations that says, “OK, we're thinking about making this permanent. Who's going to give up her career?” And it's not really a conversation, or at least maybe it wasn't in my era, but Jay never had that conversation with me. It was always we could do more together than either of us could do alone, and he has been so supportive of me. And, yeah, vice versa. But I had to go back east for something last week, and I knew that even in this big reception that I was in with all these people, that he wasn't going to be there, and if he was, he'd still be the most interesting guy in the room. So, I married well, and my family always — we're a very close family. And I think while my obligations to my family didn't end at the front porch, my family gave richness and dimension to my life that I never really anticipated as a young woman, and it's given me joy. Success seemed possible to achieve; joy always seemed like a gift from God, and I have had joy because of my family.   Naviere Walkewicz  34:18 Thank you for sharing that. You talk about when you're hiring, you choose people that kind of fill gaps, but it sounds like, also on your personal team, you want to make sure that you're choosing it, you know...   Dr. Heather Wilson  34:30 Yeah, you're going to be roommates for a long time. That matters. And there's the things that you just kind of have to get over. You know, I'm not going to clean around his sink, and he's not going to be bothered about the fact that my closet's color coordinated. I mean, we just live with that, right?   Naviere Walkewicz  34:49 I appreciate that about you so much. You talked a minute ago about some things you learned about yourself as a leader. You know, “Not take myself too seriously.” Can you share a little bit more about that journey on your own, like that personal leadership journey that you've made?   Dr. Heather Wilson  35:07 Yeah, and I think it's easier as you go on. And honestly, very early on, I was very often the only woman in the room, and so I wanted to be taken seriously. I was also very often the youngest person in the room. And so those two things made me want to be taken seriously. As I went on and got more responsibility, I realized that the truth is I am a very serious and successful woman. My husband would say that I was raised in the home for the humor impaired, and that I've been in therapy with him for over 30 years. So, I gradually learned to see the humor in life. I still am not one that stands up and tells jokes or something, but I see the humor in life and I don't take myself too seriously. The person that I watched who used self-deprecating humor better than any leader I've ever seen was actually Dave Goldfein. Everyone knew when he walked into a room, or if he stood up on a stage at a town hall meeting with a bunch of airmen or something — everybody knew that they were gonna laugh. At some point in that meeting we're gonna laugh, and not at someone else's expense, but at his. And it made people relax around him. He was very, very good at it. But I also knew that his self-deprecating humor was really a cover for exceptional competence, and I never underestimated that, but it made people relax and brought a little bit of joy to whatever intractable problem we were looking at.   Naviere Walkewicz  36:51 Well, you shared about sometimes when you're coming up through your leadership, you were often the only woman in the room and sometimes the youngest in the room. What would you like to share on your thoughts of what has that impact been, and what do you see as your legacy?   Dr. Heather Wilson  37:07 Well, there were some times, particularly early on, when women flying or women in positions of command was new, where you just had to do the job and realize that you were probably changing attitudes as you went and that it would be easier for those who came after you, and that's OK. I don't see that as much anymore. Although, when I was elected to Congress, I think probably 10% to 15% of the House was women. Now it's more than that, and once it gets to be more than 30% in any room, it doesn't sound — it's almost like you walk into a restaurant where it's all guys or all women, and you notice the difference in the room, the tones of the voices and things. Once you get to about a third, it feels like it's comfortable, but early on, I always was very conscious of it and conscious of the obligation to do well, because I was being judged not only for myself, but for an entire group of people. And so, I was sensitive to that, and wanted to make sure that I didn't, like — “Don't shame the family,” right? So make sure that you keep the doors open. As far as legacy is concerned, and I think back in my time as Air Force secretary, I would say there's two things that I hope linger, and they have so far. One is a change to the promotion system to make sure that we have the right kind of talent to choose from at all levels in the organization, and so that, I think, has continued to persist. And the other one that will be changed over time and has to be changed over time, had to do with the science and technology strategy of the Air Force and the need to stay ahead of adversaries. I think this is a completely separate conversation, but I actually think that that we are at greater risk of scientific and technical surprise today than at any time since the end of the Second World War. And if you go back and read books about engineers of victory, or there's a whole lot of books about how science and technology was brought to bear in prevailing in the Second World War. I think we're at risk now in a way that we've kind of become complacent about. So, science and technology strategy is something that I hope is a legacy.   Naviere Walkewicz  39:36 That's amazing, ma'am. And I think not only for our military, but you're able to influence that in the spaces that you are now.   Dr. Heather Wilson  39:43 Yeah, engaging the next generation, which is a heck of a lot of fun. You know, the University of Texas at El Paso is a wonderful institution — 25,000 students, half of them are the first in their families to go to college. About 70% or so come from families making less than about $45,000 a year. So, this is a university that transforms lives, and it's a university that — of my 25,000 students, over 5,000 are studying engineering. Another couple thousand are studying science, College of Nursing, College of Education. This has a tremendous impact on the region and on the lives of those who choose to educate themselves. And so it's a wonderful mission to be part of, and I think it's important for the nation. I think regions of the world who choose to educate their people in the 21st century will thrive, and those that don't are going to be left behind, and that's why I do what I do.   Naviere Walkewicz  40:44 Well, it clearly aligns with your foundation and your mission, ma'am, and I think that's outstanding. We're going to ask for Dr. Wilson's final thoughts next, but before we do, I'd like to take a moment and thank you for listening to Long Blue Leadership. The podcast publishes Tuesdays in both video and audio and is available on all your favorite podcast platforms. Be sure to watch, listen and subscribe to all episodes of Long Blue Leadership at longblueleadership.org. So, Dr. Wilson, I would love to take a moment to gather some of your final thoughts, what you'd like to share today.   Dr. Heather Wilson  41:21 Well, assuming that most of the folks who listen to this are either cadets or young officers or grads, I leave them with one thought, and that is, don't shame the family. Don't shame the family. People will look up to you because you are an Air Force Academy graduate, or you are an Air Force cadet. The standard is higher, so live up to the standard.   Naviere Walkewicz  41:50 Ma'am, we started with you being direct. You ended direct. I think that is amazing. Thank you very much. Thanks for being on Long Blue Leadership.   Dr. Heather Wilson  41:58 My pleasure.     KEYWORDS leadership, Air Force Academy, integrity, mentorship, quality management, Dr. Heather Wilson, military service, personal growth, career journey, unexpected opportunities, leadership, integrity, family support, women in leadership, public service, legacy, mission-driven, personal growth, collaboration, Congress     The Long Blue Line Podcast Network is presented by the U.S. Air Force Academy Association and Foundation    

The Communist Bloc shaped the Cold War and global politics for decades—but what was it really?

Several times during the Cold War, the World came dangerously close to a nuclear disaster. In 1961 and 1968, B52 Bombers carrying nuclear bombs met with accidents nearly leading to a nuclear catastrophe. In 1983, one Soviet Lt. Col. single handedly saved the world from WWIII when he categorized an alarm about 5 missiles being launched at the Soviet Union, a false alarm. NATO conducted a WWIII simulation in 1983, which the Soviets assumed, was cover for an actual nuclear strike from the West. 

News, Foreign Minister Lipavský receives seal and stamp symbolizing the termination of the Warsaw Pact, the original Rapid Arrows comics on display, interview with actress Roza Andelova  

News, Foreign Minister Lipavský receives seal and stamp symbolizing the termination of the Warsaw Pact, the original Rapid Arrows comics on display, interview with actress Roza Andelova  

During the Cold War years the Royal Navy faced some of its greatest challenges, both at sea confronting the increasingly capable and impressive Soviet Navy, and on shore when it faced policy crises that threatened the survival of much of the fleet. During this period the Navy had rarely been so focused on a single theatre of war - the Eastern Atlantic - but also rarely so politically vulnerable. To find out more Dr Sam Willis spoked with Ed Hampshire, author of the fabulous new book – The Royal Navy in the Cold War Years, 1966-1990: Retreat and Revival. They discuss operations and confrontations at sea with Soviet ships and submarines; the Navy's role in the enormous NATO and Warsaw Pact naval exercises that acted out potential war scenarios; the development of advanced naval technologies to counter Soviet capabilities; policy-making controversies as the three British armed services fought for resources, including the controversial 1981 Nott Defense Review; and what life was like in the Cold War navy for ratings and officers. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the late 1960s European club football competitions were thriving However unexpected events in 1968 threatened its survival. I delve into the fascinating world of European football during the Cold War era with Craig McCracken, a self-described peddler and purveyor of quasi obscure retro football nostalgia via the 'Beyond The Last Man' blog. We explore the political tensions that influenced European football in the 1960s, and the dramatic events of 1968 when the Prague Spring was crushed by Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces. Discover how these geopolitical events impacted clubs like Celtic, the Milan clubs, and Real Madrid, and the unprecedented decisions UEFA had to make. This episode is a gripping tale of football, politics, and the power struggles that shaped the beautiful game. Episode extras https://coldwarconversations.com/episode370 Craig's excellent blog https://beyondthelastman.com/ All our Cold War Sport episodes in one convenient playlist https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2OoAtLN7sHYdCgCNhms1Kl?si=da05732a422a41f8   The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Support the project! https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Love history? Join Intohistory https://intohistory.com/coldwarpod   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

About the Lecture: The National Security Archive, based at George Washington University, has pioneered the use of the Freedom of Information Act to open classified U.S. files, and then to match those American primary sources with newly opened (and often now closed) archives in the former Soviet Union and countries of the Warsaw Pact. This presentation will draw on materials from the Archive to shed light on major events of recent history, such as the last “superpower summits” (between Gorbachev and Reagan, and later Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush), the miraculous revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe, Yeltsin's turn to authoritarianism in Russia in the 1990s together with the “market bolshevism” (Peter Reddaway's phrase) of economic reform, what Gorbachev and Yeltsin heard from Americans and Europeans about NATO expansion, nuclear follies from Semipalatinsk to Pervomaysk, and the existential threats to humanity (nuclear and climate) that make the U.S. and Russia “doomed to cooperate” (in Sig Hecker's phrase). About the Speakers: Tom Blanton is the director since 1992 of the independent non-governmental National Security Archive at George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org). His books have been awarded the 2011 Link-Kuehl Prize from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, selection by Choice magazine as “Outstanding Academic Title 2017,” and the American Library Association's James Madison Award Citation in 1996, among other honors. The National Freedom of Information Act Hall of Fame elected him a member in 2006, and Tufts University presented him the Dr. Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award in 2011 for “decades of demystifying and exposing the underworld of global diplomacy.” His articles have appeared in Diplomatic History, Foreign Policy, The New York Times, and the Washington Post, among many other journals; and he is series co-editor for the National Security Archive's online and book publications of more than a million pages of declassified U.S. government documents obtained through the Archive's more than 60,000 Freedom of Information Act requests. Dr. Svetlana Savranskaya is director of Russia programs (since 2001) at the National Security Archive, George Washington University. She earned her Ph.D. in political science and international affairs in 1998 from Emory University. She is the author, with Thomas Blanton, of the book The Last Superpower Summits: Gorbachev, Reagan and Bush, (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2016), and editor of the book by the late Sergo Mikoyan, The Soviet Cuban Missile Crisis: Castro, Mikoyan, Kennedy, Khrushchev and the Missiles of November (Stanford: Stanford University Press/Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2012). Dr. Savranskaya won the Link-Kuehl Prize in 2011 from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, recognizing the best documentary publication over the previous two years, for her book (with Thomas Blanton and Vladislav Zubok) “Masterpieces of History”: The Peaceful End of the Cold War in Europe 1989 (Budapest/New York: Central European University Press, 2010). She is author and co-author of several publications on Gorbachev's foreign policy and nuclear learning and the end of the Cold War, and numerous electronic briefing books on these subjects. She serves as an adjunct professor teaching U.S.-Russian relations at the American University School of International Service in Washington D.C. (since 2001).

pWotD Episode 2669: Bill Clinton Welcome to Popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 342,902 views on Thursday, 22 August 2024 our article of the day is Bill Clinton.William Jefferson Clinton (né Blythe III; born August 19, 1946) is an American lawyer and politician who served as the 42nd president of the United States from 1993 to 2001. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as governor of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and again from 1983 to 1992. Clinton, whose policies reflected a centrist "Third Way" political philosophy, became known as a New Democrat.Clinton was born and raised in Arkansas. He graduated from Georgetown University in 1968, and later from Yale Law School, where he met his future wife, Hillary Rodham. After graduating from law school, Clinton returned to Arkansas and won election as state attorney general, followed by two non-consecutive tenures as Arkansas governor. As governor, he overhauled the state's education system and served as chairman of the National Governors Association. Clinton was elected president in the 1992 election, defeating the incumbent Republican Party president George H. W. Bush and the independent businessman Ross Perot. He became the first president to be born in the Baby Boomer generation.Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history. He signed into law the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, but failed to pass his plan for national health care reform. Starting in the mid-1990s, he began an ideological evolution as he became much more conservative in his domestic policy, advocating for and signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the State Children's Health Insurance Program and financial deregulation measures. He appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the U. S. Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Clinton ordered U. S. military intervention in the Bosnian and Kosovo wars, eventually signing the Dayton Peace agreement. He also called for the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe and many former Warsaw Pact members joined NATO during his presidency. Clinton's foreign policy in the Middle East saw him sign the Iraq Liberation Act which gave aid to groups against Saddam Hussein. He also participated in the Oslo I Accord and Camp David Summit to advance the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, and assisted the Northern Ireland peace process.Clinton won re-election in the 1996 election, defeating Republican nominee Bob Dole and Reform Party nominee Perot. His second term was dominated by the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, which began in 1995, when he had a sexual relationship with the then 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky. In January 1998, news of the affair made tabloid headlines. This scandal escalated throughout the year, culminating in December when Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, becoming the first U. S. president to be impeached since Andrew Johnson. The two impeachment articles that the House passed were centered around perjury and Clinton using the powers of the presidency to commit obstruction of justice. In 1999, Clinton's impeachment trial began in the Senate, where he was acquitted on both charges. During the last three years of Clinton's presidency, the Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus—the first such surplus since 1969.Clinton left office in 2001 with the joint-highest approval rating of any U. S. president. His presidency ranks among the middle to upper tier in historical rankings of U. S. presidents. However, his personal conduct and misconduct allegations have made him the subject of substantial scrutiny. Since leaving office, Clinton has been involved in public speaking and humanitarian work. He created the Clinton Foundation to address international causes such as the prevention of HIV/AIDS and global warming. In 2009, he was named the United Nations special envoy to Haiti. After the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Clinton founded the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund with George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He has remained active in Democratic Party politics, campaigning for his wife's 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:37 UTC on Friday, 23 August 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Bill Clinton on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Joanna.

Every year as school began, it seemed that each of my primary school teachers would have us write a paragraph or an essay about our summer's activities. As August finishes and school in most of the US has reconvened, this seemed a good time to reflect on my adventures the last few months.Historical markers include astronomy, Bulgaria and Hungary, Warsaw Pact nations squelching an uprising and Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.Support the Show.Thanks for listening. Please share the pod with your mates, and feel free to comment right here! Write to Bob on his email -- bobmendo@AOL.comLink to https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100078996765315 on Facebook. Bobs Your Uncle features the opinions of Bob Mendelsohn and any of his guests.To financially support the podcast, go to the Patreon site and choose Gold, Silver or Bronze levels. Thanks for that! https://www.patreon.com/BobsYourUncle To read Bob's 1999 autobiography, click this link https://bit.ly/StoryBob To see photos of any of Bob's guests, they are all on an album on his Flickr site click here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobmendo/albums/72177720296857670

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJeffrey Toobin is a lawyer, author, and the chief legal analyst at CNN, after a long run at The New Yorker. He has written many bestselling books, including True Crimes and Misdemeanors, The Oath, The Nine, and Too Close to Call, and two others — The Run of His Life and A Vast Conspiracy — were adapted for television as seasons of “American Crime Story” on the FX channel.You can listen right away in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app). For two clips of our convo — why the Bragg conviction helped Trump, and the origins of lawfare with Bill Clinton — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in NYC as the only child of two journos; his mom was a pioneering TV correspondent; his dad was one of founding fathers of public television; Jeffrey at the Harvard Crimson and then Harvard Law; how Marty Peretz mentored us both; the conservative backlash after Nixon and rebuilding executive power; Ford's pardon; Jeffrey on the team investigating Oliver North; the Boland Amendment and the limits of law; Cheney's role during Iran-Contra; how Congress hasn't declared war since WWII; Whitewater to Lewinsky; Ken Starr and zealous prosecutors; Trump extorting Ukraine over the Bidens; Russiagate; the Mueller Report and Barr's dithering; how such investigations can help presidents; the Bragg indictment; the media environment of Trump compared to Nixon; Fox News coverage of Covid; Trump's pardons; hiding Biden; the immunity case; SEAL Team Six and other hypotheticals; Jack Smith and fake electors; the documents case; the check of impeachment; the state of SCOTUS and ethics scandals; Thomas and the appearance of corruption; the wives of Thomas and Alito; the Chevron doctrine; reproductive rights; the Southern border and asylum; Jeffrey's main worry about a second Trump term; and his upcoming book on presidential pardons.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Eric Kaufmann on liberal extremism, and Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy on animal cruelty. (Van Jones' PR team canceled his planned appearance.) Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.Here's a fan of last week's episode with Anne Applebaum:I loved your freewheeling interview with Applebaum. Just like the last time she was on, each of you gave as good as you got.I tend to agree more with her, because I fear that sometimes you come off as what Jeane Kirkpatrick called the “blame America first crowd” — not that we haven't committed our sins. But if we didn't exist, Putin would still be evil and want to recreate the Warsaw Pact, and the mullahs in Iran would still be fanatics despite our CIA involvement. It's complicated.Another on foreign policy:I despise Putin, my sympathies are totally with the Ukrainians, and I get angry when people like Rod Dreher and Tucker Carlson imply that the Russians were forced by the West to invade Ukraine. But, so what! You hit the nail on the head with the Obama quote — that Ukraine is never going to mean as much to us as it does to them (the Russians). You also made another very good point that the Russians can't even conquer Ukraine, but we're supposed to fear they will march West? How they going to do that?!Another took issue with several things from Anne:You raised the immigration issue, and Applebaum completely dismissed it: Hungary doesn't have a migrant crisis. … Because it's a useful symbol [to] create fear and anxiety. … This is the oldest political trick in the book, and the creation of an imaginary culture war is one of the ways in which you build support among a more fearful part of the population.WTF? Are Hungarians not allowed to see what is happening in every other European country that has allowed mass migration and see the problems it has caused and proactively decide to prevent this?! Are they not allowed to be concerned until Budapest has the banlieues of Paris, the car bombing gangs of Sweden, and the grooming gangs of England?! And in Germany, it has been recently reported that almost half of people receiving social payments are migrants.Applebaum followed that up with an even bigger gobsmacker about Biden's cognitive decline: “This is another road I don't want to go down, but I know people who met with Joe Biden a couple months ago, and he was fine” (meaning I just want to make my statement but will not allow you a rebuttal). And then:I've met [Harris] a few times, mostly in the context of conversations about foreign policy and about Russia and Ukraine and other things. And she's an intelligent conversationalist. … I was impressed with her. And these are way off-the-record conversations... And I was always more impressed with how she was off the record. And then I would sometimes see her in public. And I thought, she seems very stiff and nervous. … You'd like her if you met her in real life.Translation of both of these excerpts: “You plebes who aren't insiders just don't understand, but trust me — the connected insider — instead of your lying eyes.”Another adds:I think for the next few months, you're going to have to push people like Anne Applebaum to be more open to criticizing the Biden-Harris record. She's a smart person with important things to say, but she clearly dared not criticize the current administration, lest she be seen as helping Trump. And another:She says, unironically, that autocrats rig court systems with exotic new lawfare to attack their political enemies to seize or cling to power. I wonder what that makes Alvin Bragg and Merrick Garland.This Dishhead listened to the episode with his teenage son:The notion that Trump supporters want a dictator is beyond ridiculous. They are among the most individualistic and freedom-loving people in America. They are the Jacksonians, the Scots-Irish heart of this country. They are ornery as hell, and if Trump tried to force them into anything, he'd have another thing coming.  Just look how he tried to get them to take “his” vaccine. That didn't work out so well, did it? The truth is, they view people like Anne as the ones who are taking away their rights and freedoms through their absolute dominance of the media and all cultural institutions. Now maybe Trump will deliver them from that and maybe he won't, but that is what they are seeking — not a dictator, but someone who will break the hideous grip that the liberal elite has on the culture.My son is 18 years old and was also listening to the episode. He is highly engaged in national and world affairs, and he also thought Anne was way off track. He's already announced to his mother (much to her chagrin) that he will be casting his first vote for Trump. And get this: he's going to Oberlin College this fall. I can assure you he's not looking for a dictator. He's looking to say “eff you” to a system that has no use for upper-class, normal white boys like him. The elites hate him and his friends.But I'm glad you have a diversity of views on the Dishcast. It really is the best. I look forward to listening to it every week.I can't back Trump, but I do think your son is onto something. On a few other episodes:Lionel Shriver — I love her! I wished you'd talked more about her novel, Mania. It's not perfect, but it's good.On the Stephen Fry pod, I was resistant! He's irritated me at times. But I loved it when you two started doing Larkin! I shouldn't admit this, but “Aubade” could be my autobiography. I think one or both of you misinterpret “Church Going.” Larkin doesn't wish he had faith. I don't think that's relevant to him. Fry talked about how he liked everything about Anglicanism except for the detail about God (and I always suspect that for Anglicans, God is a somewhat troubling detail). I'm probably just guessing, but I don't think that's Larkin. Larkin didn't wish he had faith. He was elegiac about the past in which there was faith. I think you'll see this sensibility in “An Arundel Tomb.”Agreed. Another on Shriver:She seems to think that “liberals” are mistaken in believing that everyone can be equal, but I think she is mistaken in thinking that is what they believe — at least those I know. Liberals do think that 1) expectations play a role in what people achieve; and 2) given the right circumstances, many people find they can achieve more than was expected. Low expectations do lead to low outcomes (and yes, there is research to support that statement). Does that mean everyone can do anything they wish? No. Neither you nor I will ever be a concert pianist, but let us not condemn everyone to the garbage heap based on false expectations.Thanks as always for your provocative discussions.Here's a guest rec:Musa Al Gharbi, a sociologist at Stony Brook, has written for Compact, American Affairs, and The Liberal Patriot. His forthcoming book, We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite, draws on Pierre Bourdieu's notions of cultural capital to analyze the ascendant symbolic capitalists — those who work in law, technology, nonprofits, academia, journalism and media, finance, civil service and the like — and how the ideology known as “wokeness” exists to entrench economic inequality and preserve the hegemony of this class. I have preordered the book, and it should be a timely read for an election in which class (education), not race, has become the preeminent dividing line in our politics.Here's a guest rec with pecs:I have a recommendation that may sound bonkers, but hear me out: Alan Ritchson, the actor whose career has taken off thanks to playing Jack Reacher on Reacher.The fact that he's really, really, really ridiculously good-looking is the least interesting thing about him. I'd love to hear a conversation between you and him for a few reasons. First, he's bipolar and speaks openly about it. Second, he started taking testosterone supplements after his body broke down from working out for Reacher, and he speaks openly about that too. Third, he's a devout evangelical Christian who speaks openly about his faith — and about his disgust with Christian nationalism and the hijacking of Christianity by many Trump supporters. Fourth, he posted what read to me as a thoughtful, sane critique of bad cops, thereby angering certain denizens of the Very Online Right. Thus, he could speak to a number of major Dishcast themes: mental illness, masculinity, and Christianity. To me, he manages to come across as a guy's guy whose comments on political matters sound like the result of actual reflection, rather than reflexively following a progressive script, which is how most celebrities come across. He's articulate, and the way he's navigating this cultural and political moment is fascinating. And if you do snag him, you should supplement the audio with video.Haha. But seriously, we're trying to keep the podcast fresh and this is a great out-of-the-box recommendation. Next up, the dissents over my views on Harris continue from the main page. A reader writes:I have no particular attachment to Kamala Harris, and share some of your concerns, but your latest column reads more like a Fox News hit piece than a real assessment. The main problem is that you seem to be judging Harris almost exclusively on the basis of statements she made in 2020, at the height of the Democrats' woke mania because of George Floyd. Do you not remember that she was destroyed in the primary because she was a prosecutor, and was to the right of almost everyone else in the primary, except for Biden and Sanders? That's why she lost: she wasn't woke enough. So as VP, of course she pivoted to shore up her appeal to the base, like any good politician would. It's terribly unfortunate that she had to tack hard left precisely as the country was moving back to the center and rejecting wokism, but that doesn't mean she's the “wokest candidate,” as you say. It just means she's a politician.My criticism also extended to her management and campaigning skills in the past. And look: I don't think it's fair to compare my attempt to review the evidence of her record with a Fox News hit-piece. It's important to understand her vulnerabilities as well as he core ideas, if she has any. This next reader thinks she is off to a good, non-woke start:I agree with your criticisms of Harris, at least some of them. We need to have stronger border enforcement, we can't have riots in cities, and racism is real but DEI excesses are also bad. And it's troubling that she has a history of being a bad boss. I can only hope that she has learned from her mistakes. But I take heart from her campaign speech in Wisconsin: she said not a word about DEI, nothing about “vote for me to show that you're not sexist/racist, because I'm a woman of color,” and not much about “Trump is a threat to democracy.” It was all, “I have experience dealing with sleazy crooks and sex offenders like Trump, and I want to help middle-class Americans and protect health care and a woman's right to choose.” Sounds like a popular message!You also say, “She is not a serious person.” Bro, have you *seen* the other party's candidate?

Due to personal circumstances, I've been unable to produce a new episode this week, however, you will be aware of the many gems in the back catalogue and I have chosen one of my favourites today which is a rip-roaring story of service in the USAF with Rick Shreve an F111 pilot which I know you will enjoy. Normal service should be resumed next week. Rick Shreve was a US Air Force F 111 pilot based at RAF Lakenheath in the UK. He was trained to carry out nuclear as well as conventional missions against the Warsaw Pact forces in Europe. Rick describes his low-level training missions to attack targets in the Soviet Union and East Germany, where he recalls a near-fatal incident amongst the Scottish lochs. Rick was also part of one of the crews that flew on Operation El Dorado Canyon, the operation to bomb Libya in April 1986 in retaliation for the West Berlin discotheque bombing ten days earlier. Rick gives you a very frank and honest view of his role in the US Air Force and his approach to the huge responsibilities he carried. Episode extras https://coldwarconversations.com/episode358/ The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Support the project! https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Love history? Join Intohistory https://intohistory.com/coldwarpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Download the Volley.FM app for more short daily shows!

Original Air Date: January 6, 1998Episode 1289Website: thefacthunter.comEmail: thefacthunter@mail.comSnail Mail: George Hobbs PO Box109 Goldsboro, MD  21636

Content warning for discussion of genocide. Hey, Hi, Hello, this is the History Wizard and welcome back for Day 7 of Have a Day w/ The History Wizard. Thank you to everyone who tuned in for Day 6 last week, and especially thank you to everyone who rated and/or reviewed the podcast. I hope you all learned something last week and I hope the same for this week. Speaking of weeks, we've finally hit our first week! Get it? This is episode 7, the episodes are called Days. There are 7 Days in a Week… I'm funny dammit! I've got something special for you starting at the end of Week 1. It's a new segment I'm going to call the Alchemist's Table. Every Day I'm going to be sharing with you a cocktail recipe that I have invented. If you enjoy a nice cocktail and you aren't driving to work feel free to make yourself one before sitting down for the rest of the episode. For Day 7 we're going to be enjoying the first cocktail I ever created. It's called A Taste of Spring. It starts with 2 oz of Gin, I prefer gunpowder gin, but a London Dry will work just fine. Followed by 1 oz of elderflower liquor, 1 oz of lavender syrup, stir for about 30 seconds in ice before straining into a rocks glass over ice. And that, my friends, is a Taste of Spring. Enjoy. Anyway, it's time to head back to the West, and for this episode we have to travel back in time to the 5th century BCE for the Siege of Melos during the Peloponnesian War. IN a modern historical context we look at the Peloponnesian War as being between Sparta and Athens, and while this isn't technically wrong, it's also not as right as it could be. The Peloponnesian War was fought between the Delian League, which was a confederacy of various Greek city-states with Atens in supreme control. The Delian League was created as a defensive alliance against the Persian Empire following the Second Persian Invasion of Greece (this is the invasion that included the famed Battle of Thermopylae). And the Peloponnesian League which was less a league and more an ancient world version of the Warsaw Pact, with Sparta (then called Lacadeamon) at the head with its various allied city states. See, around 550 BCE SParta got tired of having to conquer everyone and instead offered to NOT conquer them if they joined the League. The Delian League got its name from the island of Delos where they would meet and where their treasury was held before being moved to Athens in 454 BCE. The Peloponnesian League got IT'S name from the peninsula at the southern tip of Greece, which is known as the Peloponnese Peninsula. The Peloponnesian League is something of a misnomer as its membership was not limited to that area of Greece. But, I ramble, and so let us return to the Peloponnesian War. Why did Sparta and Athens, erstwhile allies against Xerxes I and the Persian Empire decide to go to war with each other? The period between the Second Persian Invasion of Greece and the Peloponnesian War is sometimes known as the Pentecontaetia, a term which means “a period of 50 years” which refers to the 48 year period between 479 and 431 BCE. The Pentecontaetia saw the rise of Athens as one of the most prominent Greek City States, it saw the rise of Athenian democracy, and it saw the rise of tensions between Sparta and Athens. You can look at this period as somewhat similar to the rising tensions between Rome and Carthage. Sparta HAD been the most powerful Greek city-state, and now suddenly they had a rival and didn't like that. Sparta was the Sasuke to Athens Naruto, the Vegeta to Athen's Goku. Following the flight of the Persian armies from Greece Athens began to rebuild the great walls around their city that had been lost to the Persian armies. Sparta, upon learning about this construction, asked them not to do that. But Athens rebuffed them, not wanting to put Athens effectively under the control of Sparta's massive army. Another way we can view Athens and Sparta through the lens of Carthage and Rome is that Athens was vastly superior at sea, and Sparta was vastly superior on land, just as Carthage and Rome were, respectively. I'm taking bets now on who is going to win this war, assuming you don't already know. These tensions, which were further exacerbated by a helot revolt within Sparta would explode, though not terribly violently, during a 15 year conflict known as the First Peloponnesian War. This first war would end with the signing of the Thirty Years Peace treaty. This treaty, which would only last for 15 years, would solidify the Athenian and Spartan Empires and would cement Athens as a true powerhouse in the Aegean Sea. Conflict between Athens and Corinth, a member of the Peloponnesian League, is what ultimately led to war. Athens and Corinth effectively fought a brief proxy war over control of the Corinthian colony of Potidea. Corinth, outraged that Athens had encouraged one of its colonies to rebel against their authority, urged Sparta to call a conclave to try and arbitrate peace as was stipulated under the Thirty Years Peace.  The Spartan King Archidamus II urged the Spartan magistrates (known as ephor) and the citizen assembly known as the ecclesia not to go to war, but in the end the assembly determined that Athens, in urging Potidea to rebel against one of their allies and then aiding them in the fight for the city had broken the Peace and war was officially declared in 431 BCE. The Second Peloponnesian War had begun. The Second Peloponnesian War, often known as just the Peloponnesian War, can be broken up into three distinct segments. The Archidamian War, The Sicilian Expedition, and the Decelean War. The first 10 years of the war are sometimes also called the Ten Years War. Sparta was, almost entirely, a land based empire. The Spartan Army was the most feared and one of the best trained armies of the ancient world. Their hoplites and their phalanxes were nearly invincible. Meanwhile Athens had the same prestige on the waves. The Battle of Salamis in 480 BCE, though discussed far less frequently than the concurrent Battle of Thermopylae, is no less impressive a feat of military genius. So the Spartan strategy during the beginning of the war was to march its armies to the land around the city state of Athens and seize them. This caused many Athenian farmers to abandon their farms and retreat behind Athens famous Long Walls. The Long Walls were fortified walls that connected Athens' main city to its ports at Piraeus and Phaleron. So despite the loss of farmland around Athens itself, this siege did basically nothing. Sparta was also only able to keep troops on the field for a few weeks at a time, as the hoplites were still needed to harvest their own fields and troops were always needed to keep the helots in line. The longest siege of the Ten Years War was only 40 days. Meanwhile Athens stayed in the Aegean Sea with their fleet, avoiding any open warfare with the Spartans who were unable to breach their walls anyway. The Athenians had great successes in their early naval battles, including the Battle of Naucaptus where 20 Athenian ships went up  against 77 Peloponnesian ships and emerged victorious. Of course, all of Athen's momentum would come to a screeching and screaming halt when th plague hit in 430 BCE. The Plague of Athens was an interesting facet of the war. While some Athenians believed that the Spartans were the cause of the plague, evidenced they said by the fact that the Spartans were unaffected by it, but Thucydides, author the the famous History of the Peloponnesian War was in the city when the plague hit. He even contracted it and survived his illness. Thucydides says that the plague came from Ethiopia as it appeared to have entered Athens along the Long Wall from the port of Piraeus. There's not much in the way of evidence regarding WHAT exactly the plague was, although Thucydides listed out a large number of symptoms that victims experienced including: Fever, Redness and inflammation in the eyes, Sore throats leading to bleeding and bad breath, Sneezing, Loss of voice, Coughing, Vomiting, Pustules and ulcers on the body, Extreme thirst, Insomnia, Diarrhea, Convulsions, and Gangrene. Modern epidemiologists and paleopathologists believe, based on extensive examination of all the available evidence that the plague was likely either smallpox or typhus, although it's unlikely that we'll ever know for certain. The plague had a massive impact on the course of the war. For one, it killed Pericles, the Athenian statesman and strategos of the Athenian military. It also killed over 30,000 people, made foreign mercenaries unwilling to aid Athens, no matter how much they were offered as they did not want to risk getting sick, the plague even halted any Spartan military action in Attica until it was finished as the Spartans also feared the disease. Even with the loss of Pericles Athens continued to have success on sea as well as on land through the efforts of their commanders Demosthenes and Cleon. They started to put cracks in the Spartan armies image of invincibility until the Spartans captured Amphipolis, a silver mine that supplied much of the Athenian war chest in 424 BCE. In 422 a great battle was fought at Amphipolis which saw both Cleon, and the Spartan general Brasidas killed. The loss of these military commanders would see Athens and Sparta sit down to try and negotiate peace.  The Peace of Nicias would be a failure from the very start. Despite it, nominally, declaring peace between Sparta and Athens, despite PoWs being exchanged and control over territories ceded back to those who originally owned them, the Peace of Nicias was something of a joke. Sparta and Athens entered something of a Cold War. They didn't fight against each other specifically, but Athens spent a LOT of time trying to stir up helot revolts and encourage Spartan allies to revolt against them in order to gain greater autonomy under Athenian democracy.  Something that is interesting to note, is that despite the single largest land battle of the Peloponnesian War taking place in 418 BCE, the Peace wasn't formally abandoned, and war declared again between Athens and Sparta until 214 BCE. The Battle of Mantinea was fought between Sparta and some of its Arcadian allies on one side, and the combined might of Argos, Athens, Mantinea and various Arcadian allies of Argos. The battle, which involved nearly 20,000 troops combined, ended with a Spartan victory and saw a reversal of previous trends. After the Spartan loss at the Battle of Pylos in 425 BCE many began to think of the Spartans as weak and cowardly, but Mantinea reversed that thinking very quickly. The Siege of Melos, the true subject of this episode, also took place during the Peace of Nicias. Athenian aggression against Melos began about 10 years before the Siege. Melos was a small island about 68 miles off the Eastern coast of Greece. Small islands, due to their reliance on navies, were generally allies of Athens who had uncontested control of the seas. Melos though, decided to remain neutral. They were ethnically Dorian, same as the Spartans (the Athenians were ethnically Ionian). In 425 Athens demanded that Melos pay them a 15 talents (about 390 kgs) of silver. Melos refused. They were determined to remain neutral (although there is pretty good evidence that they donated 20 minas (about 12.5 kgs) of silver to the Spartan war effort. In 216 BCE Athens once again went to Melos and demanded that Melos join the Delian League and pay tribute. Melos again refused. Thucydides wrote a dramatization of conversation between Athenian embassies and the leaders of Melos in his Histories (Book 5, Chapters 84–116). The Melian Dialogue is one of the earliest events I learned about during undergrad when I took a class on the History of Just War. I need to go off on a slight tangent here. When I took this class there was this one guy, whose name I never learned. He was jacked as hell and always showed up to class double fisting iced coffees from Starbucks. Now this class was built around a questionL “Is there such a thing as a Just War?”, but apparently this dude never read the syllabus because about 3 weeks into class he asks “When are we gonna get to the battles?” See, he thought it was History of Just War, just meaning only. He thought it was a military history class, not a class on moral philosophy seen through the context of war. I'm pretty sure he got an A though… Anyway, back to Melos. It's unlikely that the conversation Thucydides wrote out is how it played out in real life, though given the Athenian love of oration and speeches, he's probably not TOO far off the mark. I'm going to read you a part of the Melian Dialogue: Athenians. For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Melians. As we think, at any rate, it is expedient- we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest- that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon. Athenians. The end of our empire, if end it should, does not frighten us: a rival empire like Lacedaemon, even if Lacedaemon was our real antagonist, is not so terrible to the vanquished as subjects who by themselves attack and overpower their rulers. This, however, is a risk that we are content to take. We will now proceed to show you that we are come here in the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now going to say, for the preservation of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire over you without trouble, and see you preserved for the good of us both. Melians. And how, pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to rule? Athenians. Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you. Melians. So that you would not consent to our being neutral, friends instead of enemies, but allies of neither side. Athenians. No; for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power. Melians. Is that your subjects' idea of equity, to put those who have nothing to do with you in the same category with peoples that are most of them your own colonists, and some conquered rebels? Athenians. As far as right goes they think one has as much of it as the other, and that if any maintain their independence it is because they are strong, and that if we do not molest them it is because we are afraid; so that besides extending our empire we should gain in security by your subjection; the fact that you are islanders and weaker than others rendering it all the more important that you should not succeed in baffling the masters of the sea. See, Athens refused to allow Melos to remain neutral because they believed that, if they allowed this small, weak nation to live independent of their might that they would soon find themselves overrun with rebellion as all others would see Athens let Melos go free and see Athens as weak, as if they somehow feared fighting Melos. So, pragmatically, it would be better for them to kill all the Melians to maintain their image as strong than it would be for them to simply leave Melos be. Despite their claim to democracy, Athens was very much of the opinion that might made right. The strong take what they can and the weak suffer as they must. This was, more or less the beginning of Just War theory, as it was one of the first time that justice, fairness, and rightness was discusses in the context of war. Just War Theory, by the way, is generally made up of three elements. Jus ad bellum, do you have just reasons for going to war? Jus in bello, is your conduct during war just? And a more modern addition, jus post bellum, is your conduct after the war is over also just? Melos, ultimately, refused to surrender to Athens and, indeed, tried to fight against their armies and ultimately failed. The siege lasted from summer of 416 until the winter and ended with Melos surrendering. Athens, in a very Genghis Khan esque move decided to kill every adult man on Melos and sell all of the women and children into slavery. This form of genocide where one particular gender is targeted is common in old world genocides. Very often it is the men, those who could join opposing militaries who would be targeted for the slaughter although Shaka Zulu was infamous for killing all the women and folding the men into his armed forces during his conquests. The genocide of Melos wasn't an attempt to wipe out an ethnicity, Melians being Dorian just like the Spartans. It WAS, however, intended to destroy the people of Melos, and it succeeded. The Peloponnesian War would continue until 404 BCE and would end with a Spartan victory, partially through aid gained from the Achaemenid Dynasty from Persia and some from Alcibiades of Athens, but the war isn't the important part and so we will ignore the final 12 years of it. That's it for this week. No new reviews, so let's jump right into the outro. Have a Day! w/ The History Wizard is brought to you by me, The History Wizard. If you want to see/hear more of me you can find me on Tiktok @thehistorywizard or on Instagram @the_history_wizard. Please remember to rate, review, and subscribe to Have a Day! On your pod catcher of choice. The more you do, the more people will be able to listen and learn along with you. Thank you  for sticking around until the end and, as always, Have a Day.    

Covering the latest military flight simulation news for the week of 23 March 2024. Topics include the official announcement of the Mig-29A for DCS, an update on the Afghanistan map for DCS, Nuclear Option adds TrackIR support and a new aircraft, Winwing announces an Airbus 320 Flight Control Unit, Virpil announces legal action against FC Technologies, and the FlightSimExpo announces their 2024 exhibitors. Timestamps: 00:00 The Hangar Bay: Episode 9 01:28 The Fly-By The Week's Military Flight Sims News in 60 seconds or less 03:10 Developer News The Mig-29A "Warsaw Pact export" variant is officially announced for DCS Eagle Dynamics provided a development update on the Afghanistan map Nuclear option added TrackIR support and a new aircraft (the EW-25 Medusa) 13:09 Hardware News Winwing announced an Airbus 320 Flight Control Unit releasing on March 27 Virpil announced legal action against FC Technologies 19:05 Community News Flight Sim Expo 2024 exhibitors announced Shamrock reviews the SA340 Gazelle for DCS on Stormbirds.blog The Wolf Pack US 02 Warbirds server for DCS gets an update 27:25 User Content of the Week SimSedlo releases version 3 of his BFM and Weapons Trainer for DCS 31:06 Simpit Spotlight u/Herky1985 https://www.reddit.com/r/hotas/comments/1bmv795/my_hotas_setup/ Episode notes: https://thehangarbay.notion.site/Episode-9-The-Beach-Det-8ed31f6cdbf140fc828b6a38ec9fa078?pvs=4 email: feedback@thehangarbaypod.com Show Notes: https://www.thehangarbaypod.com Twitter (X): https://www.twitter.com/thehangarbaypod Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thehangarbaypod Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hangarbaypod Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thehangarbaypod --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thehangarbaypod/message

Russian Perspectives on the War The Historical Backdrop This is the third program in a four-part series examining historical and cultural factors which shape the backdrop against which the war in Ukraine is playing out. Having devoted the first two programs to Ukrainian perspectives, in this one we shift to how Russia views both the war and Ukrainians themselves. For reasons which I explain in this episode, there is a paranoia that is characteristic of the Russian people in general and its leaders in particular. They have long seen themselves as surrounded by enemies, both east and west. Historically, they have built vast buffer zones of territory to protect their European centers from invading forces. Traversing those buffer zones exhausted Napoleon's men and supplies in 1812, then did the same to Hitler's armies in the Second World War. The war with Ukraine stems in large measure from a resurgence of that paranoia. During the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact, controlled from Moscow, buffered against another invasion from Germany or France. Ukraine buffered against attack from the Mediterranean. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, with former Warsaw Pact nations joining NATO and Ukraine declaring its independence, these strategic buffers were lost. With Ukraine moving to join the European Union and perhaps NATO, the last semblance of a buffer zone disappeared. Early on, as the Warsaw Pact fell apart, Russia could do little to counter its reversal of fortunes, because Russia itself was in such social turmoil and economic chaos. The calamitous fall of the Soviet Union was a sore blow to Russian nationalistic pride, even among those who were not particularly fond of the Communist regime. Putin has been successful at merging that injured pride with the historic sense of paranoia to justify reclaiming Ukraine as Moscow's own vassal. Human nature becomes more determined when its pride is injured. And paranoia will motivate people to take irrational measures. All that comes together in the way that Russia is prosecuting this war. And because of these factors, finding a workable peace settlement, short of Ukraine's complete annihilation, will do little to ease Russian paranoia. And being fought to a stalemate by a supposedly second-rate power will only add to Russia's injured pride. At best, therefore, any peace settlement promises to be a recess from hostilities, not the end of them. _________ You can download a PDF transcript of this program at https://www.upsizeyourleadership.com/episodes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(Bonus) The Day After is an American television film that first aired on November 20, 1983 on the ABC television network. The film postulates a fictional war between the NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact over Germany that rapidly escalates into a full-scale nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. The action itself focuses on the residents of Lawrence, Kansas; Kansas City, Missouri; and several family farms near American missile silos.[1] The cast includes JoBeth Williams, Steve Guttenberg, John Cullum, Jason Robards, and John Lithgow. The film was written by Edward Hume, produced by Robert Papazian, and directed by Nicholas Meyer. The film was broadcast on Soviet state television in 1987,[2] during the negotiations on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The producers demanded the Russian translation conform to the original script and the broadcast not be interrupted by commentary.[3] More than 100 million people, in nearly 39 million households, watched the film during its initial broadcast.[4][5][6] With a 46 rating and a 62% share of the viewing audience during the initial broadcast, the film was the seventh-highest-rated non-sports show until then, and in 2009 it set a record as the highest-rated television film in US history.[6]

(Bonus) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/ NAY-toh; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord, OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance of 31 member states – 29 European and two North American. Established in the aftermath of World War II, the organization implemented the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington, D.C., on 4 April 1949.[3][4] NATO is a collective security system: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties. During the Cold War, NATO operated as a check on the threat posed by the Soviet Union. The alliance remained in place after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and has been involved in military operations in the Balkans, the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa. The organization's motto is animus in consulendo liber (Latin for 'a mind unfettered in deliberation').[5]

(Bonus) The Warsaw Pact (WP),[d] formally the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance (TFCMA),[e] was a collective defense treaty signed in Warsaw, Poland, between the Soviet Union and seven other Eastern Bloc socialist republics of Central and Eastern Europe in May 1955, during the Cold War. The term "Warsaw Pact" commonly refers to both the treaty itself and its resultant defensive alliance, the Warsaw Treaty Organization[5] (WTO).[f] The Warsaw Pact was the military and economic complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon), the regional economic organization for the Eastern Bloc states of Central and Eastern Europe. Dominated by the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact was established as a balance of power or counterweight to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Western Bloc.[17][18] There was no direct military confrontation between the two organizations; instead, the conflict was fought on an ideological basis and through proxy wars. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact led to the expansion of military forces and their integration into the respective blocs.[18] The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagement was the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, its own member state, in August 1968 (with the participation of all pact nations except Albania and Romania),[17] which, in part, resulted in Albania withdrawing from the pact less than one month later. The pact began to unravel with the spread of the Revolutions of 1989 through the Eastern Bloc, beginning with the Solidarity movement in Poland,[19] its electoral success in June 1989 and the Pan-European Picnic in August 1989.[20]

Welcome to the Connected Leadership podcast with Andy Lopata. In this episode, Andy's guest is Professor Daniel Druckman, a distinguished expert in negotiation, conflict management, and international affairs. Daniel Druckman is Professor Emeritus at George Mason's Schar School of Policy and Government and an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University in Sydney and at the University of Queensland in Brisbane Australia. His work focuses on negotiation, nationalism, group identity and conflict resolution among other topics. He is the recipient of five lifetime achievement awards and his most recent books, published this year, are ‘Negotiation, Identify, and Justice: Pathways to Agreement' and “When Peacekeeping Missions Collide: Balancing Multiple Roles in Peace Operations. Andy starts the podcast by asking Daniel to share insights into his unique career path, transitioning from experimental social psychology to macro-level political science. Daniel recounts three significant consulting assignments, illustrating the complexity of negotiations involving topics like renewing military bases with Spain, managing alliances between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and contributing to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) negotiations with the Soviet Union. Andy and Professor Druckman discuss the concept of turning points in negotiations, exploring the factors that precipitate departures and the subsequent consequences. They look at the importance of flexibility in negotiations, where Professor Druckman emphasises the need for adaptability and training to navigate unpredictable situations successfully. The episode touches on the psychological aspects of negotiations, including the constructive use of anger and the significance of open communication. Professor Druckman shares valuable exercises to foster mutual understanding and build rapport between negotiating parties. Reflecting on the current state of political polarisation, the discussion highlights challenges in maintaining civil discourse and finding common ground in today's divisive climate. Professor Druckman acknowledges the need for creative solutions to address these issues. The multifaceted realm of negotiation, global diplomacy, and conflict resolution is explored. Professor Druckman shares his experiences negotiating on a global scale, emphasising the impact of diplomatic and working cultures. The conversation examines the nuances of nationalism and patriotism, shedding light on their roles in conflict resolution and collective identity. Professor Druckman emphasises the importance of transitioning from a nationalist stance to a more cooperative and inclusive patriotic stance. Andy and Daniel also talk about the significance of joint community activities in fostering reconciliation. The challenge of sustaining peace when conflicts involve deeply entrenched identities is highlighted and the complexities of identity issues in conflict resolution are explored. This episode looks into the intricacies of negotiation, conflict resolution, and global affairs, offering valuable insights and practical takeaways for both personal and professional contexts. Connect with Andy Lopata Website Connect with Professor Daniel Druckman Website

Though the Biden Administration has said there will be no US troops on the ground in Israel's war on Gaza, The Intercept reports yesterday on a US Air Force memo informing personnel to be “on standby to forward deploy to support troops in the case of on ground US involvement in the Israel Hamas war.” Our war? Also today: Nuland says NEVER to getting out of Syria and the EU goes Warsaw Pact on Hungary.

During the 1970s, the US and Soviet Union were engaged in the Cold War. The US, along with other Western countries, was a member of Nato, while the Soviet Union joined forces with central and eastern European countries in the Warsaw Pact. After becoming frustrated with the way the Soviets controlled his country, Ryszard Kukliński, a Polish colonel, wrote to the US Embassy in Bonn, West Germany. For the next 10 years, he would feed the CIA tens of thousands of pages of classified military secrets.Aris Pappas, a CIA agent who analysed Ryszard's intel, speaks to George Crafer about his memories of this forgotten hero. (Photo: Jack Strong aka Ryszard Kukliński. Credit: AP)

Dan served as a lieutenant and captain in a US Army air defence artillery battalion in West Germany from 1980 until 1985. He describes details of Soviet overflights deep into West Germany and we discuss how the Warsaw Pact attempted to track their units. Now who knew that the US Army experimented with geese for perimeter security?! Dan reveals details of this little-known specialist unit. Dan worked with the improved Hawk anti-aircraft missile system. We talk about its capabilities, the challenges of working with 1980s electronics, its deployment and exercises. He describes a live firing exercise where an errant missile almost wiped out a group of VIPS. Don't miss part 2 in a couple of weeks where Dan describes his experiences in the war plans office of the general staff. Do make sure you check out the episode extras at https://coldwarconversations.com/episode328/ The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Love history? Check out Into History at this link https://intohistory.com/coldwarpod 0:00 Introduction and background of Dan 1:32 The Improved Hawk missile system and its capabilities 10:29 Deployment to field locations and the challenges faced 18:13 Encounters with Soviet aircraft and military liaison missions 24:33 The innovative use of intruder geese for security 33:21 Live firing exercises and the dangers involved 42:20 The deactivation of an air defence unit and its implications 58:41 Reflections on service 1:13:38 Podcast extras, appreciation for financial supporters, and closing remarks Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the mid-1980s Dag was a T72 tank commander in the NVA, the East German Army and is now a volunteer at the Tank Museum at Bovington in the UK.   He describes his initial tank commander training, the battle readiness of the NVA, and the challenges of a conscript army as well as a startling revelation about a significant change in doctrine in 1987. We also dig deep into the technical details of the T72, including the autoloader, deep water wading, radio communication and its advantages and disadvantages versus NATO tanks. Dag also talks about how Soviet WW2 learnings were applied into the NVA, and his regiment's role and deployment area in the event of war. Dag shares a frank view and great insight into life in the NVA as a tank commander and the challenges of life beyond the NVA as the Wall opens and all he has known disappears.   Make sure you check out the videos here https://coldwarconversations.com/episode326/ The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Love history? Check out Into History at this link https://intohistory.com/coldwarpod 0:00 Introduction 10:29 Briefing on NATO armour and perception of NATO as the enemy 18:13 Planning for potential conflict and readiness in the NVA 24:33 Understanding the roles and challenges in a conscript army 33:21 Performance and operational details of the T72 tank 42:20 Training, battlefield strategies and preparations 58:41 East German-Soviet relations and Warsaw Pact exercises 1:13:38 Reflections on service in the NVA and potential conflict with NATO 1:23:59 Reaction to the opening of the Berlin Wall and post-service encounters 1:27:34 Life post-unification: Expectations, reality and personal growth 1:31:28 Podcast extras, appreciation for financial supporters and closing remarks Chapters powered by PodcastAI✨ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

***This lecture is sponsored by the IWP IAFIE Alpha Student Chapter*** About the Lecture: "The Politicization of U.S. Intelligence: Causes and Consequences” is a presentation in association with Dr. Gentry's recent book, Neutering the CIA: Why US Intelligence Versus Trump Has Long-Term Consequences (Armin Lear Press, 2023). Beginning in 2016 and continuing into 2021, current and former U.S. intelligence officers engaged in domestic partisan politics to an unprecedented extent. This discussion will describe and assess what happened at various agencies, the causes of the politicization, consequences for the agencies and national decision-making, and prospects for renewed politicization in 2024. ***Copies of Dr. Gentry's book will be made available for purchase at the conclusion of the event and can be signed by the author.*** Purchase the book here. About the Author: Dr. John A. Gentry teaches for the School of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University. He was for 12 years an intelligence analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, where he mainly worked on economic issues associated with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries; for two of those years, he was a senior analyst on the staff of the National Intelligence Officer for Warning. He is a retired U.S. Army Reserve officer, with most assignments in special operations and intelligence arenas. He was mobilized in 1996 and spent much of 1996 as a civil affairs officer in Bosnia. Dr. Gentry formerly taught at Georgetown University, Columbia University, and the National Intelligence University. He has an economics background and received a Ph.D. in political science from George Washington University. He writes regularly on intelligence and security issues. His most recently published book is Neutering the CIA: Why US Intelligence versus Trump Has Long-Term Consequences (Armin Lear Press, 2023).

During the height of the Cold War, a group of small-town young men would lead their underdog hockey team from the little country of Czechoslovakia against the mighty Soviet Union, the juggernaut in their sport and the superpower in their neighborhood. As they battled on the ice, the young players would keep their people's quest for freedom alive, and forge a way to fight back against the authoritarian forces that sought to crush them. Join us as University of California, Davis, political science professor Ethan Scheiner, whose research focused on the intersection of politics and sports, discusses what he found out while researching and writing his new book Freedom to Win: A Cold War Story of the Courageous Hockey Team That Fought the Soviets for the Soul of Its People—and Olympic Gold.  From the sudden invasion of Czechoslovakia by an armada of tanks and 500,000 Warsaw Pact soldiers, to a hockey victory over the Soviets that inspired half a million furious citizens to take to the streets in an attempt to destroy all representations that they could find of their occupiers, Scheiner tells a story that ranges from iconic moments in history to courageous individual stories. At the heart of the tale is the Holíks, a Czechoslovak family whose resistance to the Communists embodied the deepest desires of the people of their country. Faced with life under the cruel and arbitrary regime that had stolen their family butcher shop, the Holík boys became national hockey icons and inspirations to their people. This program is part of our Good Lit series, underwritten by the Bernard Osher Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael W. Doyle's book Cold Peace: Avoiding the New Cold War (Liveright, 2023) offers an urgent examination of the world barreling toward a new Cold War. By 1990, the first Cold War was ending. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the Warsaw Pact was crumbling; following Russia's lead, cries for democracy were being embraced by a young Chinese populace. The post–Cold War years were a time of immense hope and possibility. They heralded an opportunity for creative cooperation among nations, an end to ideological strife, perhaps even the beginning of a stable international order of liberal peace. But the days of optimism are over. As renowned international relations expert Michael Doyle makes hauntingly clear, we now face the devastating specter of a new Cold War, this time orbiting the trilateral axes of Russia, the United States, and China, and exacerbated by new weapons of cyber warfare and more insidious forms of propaganda. Such a conflict at this phase in our global history would have catastrophic repercussions, Doyle argues, stymieing global collaboration efforts that are key to reversing climate change, preventing the next pandemic, and securing nuclear nonproliferation. The recent, devastating invasion of Ukraine is both an example and an augur of the costs that lay in wait. However, there is hope. Putin is not Stalin, Xi is not Mao, and no autocrat is a modern Hitler. There is also an unprecedented level of shared global interest in prosperity and protecting the planet from environmental disaster. While it is unlikely that the United States, Russia, and China will ever establish a “warm peace,” there are significant, reasonable compromises between nations that can lead to a détente. While the future remains very much in doubt, the elegant set of accords and non-subversion pacts Doyle proposes in this book may very well save the world. Andrew O. Pace is a historian of moral dilemmas of US foreign relations and an adjunct professor of history at Salt Lake Community College. He is a co-host of the Diplomatic History Channel on the New Books Network and is currently working on a book about the reversal in US foreign policy from victory at all costs in World War II to peace at any price in the Vietnam War. He can be reached at apace24@slcc.edu or via andrewopace.com. 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

Michael W. Doyle's book Cold Peace: Avoiding the New Cold War (Liveright, 2023) offers an urgent examination of the world barreling toward a new Cold War. By 1990, the first Cold War was ending. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the Warsaw Pact was crumbling; following Russia's lead, cries for democracy were being embraced by a young Chinese populace. The post–Cold War years were a time of immense hope and possibility. They heralded an opportunity for creative cooperation among nations, an end to ideological strife, perhaps even the beginning of a stable international order of liberal peace. But the days of optimism are over. As renowned international relations expert Michael Doyle makes hauntingly clear, we now face the devastating specter of a new Cold War, this time orbiting the trilateral axes of Russia, the United States, and China, and exacerbated by new weapons of cyber warfare and more insidious forms of propaganda. Such a conflict at this phase in our global history would have catastrophic repercussions, Doyle argues, stymieing global collaboration efforts that are key to reversing climate change, preventing the next pandemic, and securing nuclear nonproliferation. The recent, devastating invasion of Ukraine is both an example and an augur of the costs that lay in wait. However, there is hope. Putin is not Stalin, Xi is not Mao, and no autocrat is a modern Hitler. There is also an unprecedented level of shared global interest in prosperity and protecting the planet from environmental disaster. While it is unlikely that the United States, Russia, and China will ever establish a “warm peace,” there are significant, reasonable compromises between nations that can lead to a détente. While the future remains very much in doubt, the elegant set of accords and non-subversion pacts Doyle proposes in this book may very well save the world. Andrew O. Pace is a historian of moral dilemmas of US foreign relations and an adjunct professor of history at Salt Lake Community College. He is a co-host of the Diplomatic History Channel on the New Books Network and is currently working on a book about the reversal in US foreign policy from victory at all costs in World War II to peace at any price in the Vietnam War. He can be reached at apace24@slcc.edu or via andrewopace.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Michael W. Doyle's book Cold Peace: Avoiding the New Cold War (Liveright, 2023) offers an urgent examination of the world barreling toward a new Cold War. By 1990, the first Cold War was ending. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the Warsaw Pact was crumbling; following Russia's lead, cries for democracy were being embraced by a young Chinese populace. The post–Cold War years were a time of immense hope and possibility. They heralded an opportunity for creative cooperation among nations, an end to ideological strife, perhaps even the beginning of a stable international order of liberal peace. But the days of optimism are over. As renowned international relations expert Michael Doyle makes hauntingly clear, we now face the devastating specter of a new Cold War, this time orbiting the trilateral axes of Russia, the United States, and China, and exacerbated by new weapons of cyber warfare and more insidious forms of propaganda. Such a conflict at this phase in our global history would have catastrophic repercussions, Doyle argues, stymieing global collaboration efforts that are key to reversing climate change, preventing the next pandemic, and securing nuclear nonproliferation. The recent, devastating invasion of Ukraine is both an example and an augur of the costs that lay in wait. However, there is hope. Putin is not Stalin, Xi is not Mao, and no autocrat is a modern Hitler. There is also an unprecedented level of shared global interest in prosperity and protecting the planet from environmental disaster. While it is unlikely that the United States, Russia, and China will ever establish a “warm peace,” there are significant, reasonable compromises between nations that can lead to a détente. While the future remains very much in doubt, the elegant set of accords and non-subversion pacts Doyle proposes in this book may very well save the world. Andrew O. Pace is a historian of moral dilemmas of US foreign relations and an adjunct professor of history at Salt Lake Community College. He is a co-host of the Diplomatic History Channel on the New Books Network and is currently working on a book about the reversal in US foreign policy from victory at all costs in World War II to peace at any price in the Vietnam War. He can be reached at apace24@slcc.edu or via andrewopace.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Michael W. Doyle's book Cold Peace: Avoiding the New Cold War (Liveright, 2023) offers an urgent examination of the world barreling toward a new Cold War. By 1990, the first Cold War was ending. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the Warsaw Pact was crumbling; following Russia's lead, cries for democracy were being embraced by a young Chinese populace. The post–Cold War years were a time of immense hope and possibility. They heralded an opportunity for creative cooperation among nations, an end to ideological strife, perhaps even the beginning of a stable international order of liberal peace. But the days of optimism are over. As renowned international relations expert Michael Doyle makes hauntingly clear, we now face the devastating specter of a new Cold War, this time orbiting the trilateral axes of Russia, the United States, and China, and exacerbated by new weapons of cyber warfare and more insidious forms of propaganda. Such a conflict at this phase in our global history would have catastrophic repercussions, Doyle argues, stymieing global collaboration efforts that are key to reversing climate change, preventing the next pandemic, and securing nuclear nonproliferation. The recent, devastating invasion of Ukraine is both an example and an augur of the costs that lay in wait. However, there is hope. Putin is not Stalin, Xi is not Mao, and no autocrat is a modern Hitler. There is also an unprecedented level of shared global interest in prosperity and protecting the planet from environmental disaster. While it is unlikely that the United States, Russia, and China will ever establish a “warm peace,” there are significant, reasonable compromises between nations that can lead to a détente. While the future remains very much in doubt, the elegant set of accords and non-subversion pacts Doyle proposes in this book may very well save the world. Andrew O. Pace is a historian of moral dilemmas of US foreign relations and an adjunct professor of history at Salt Lake Community College. He is a co-host of the Diplomatic History Channel on the New Books Network and is currently working on a book about the reversal in US foreign policy from victory at all costs in World War II to peace at any price in the Vietnam War. He can be reached at apace24@slcc.edu or via andrewopace.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

Michael W. Doyle's book Cold Peace: Avoiding the New Cold War (Liveright, 2023) offers an urgent examination of the world barreling toward a new Cold War. By 1990, the first Cold War was ending. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the Warsaw Pact was crumbling; following Russia's lead, cries for democracy were being embraced by a young Chinese populace. The post–Cold War years were a time of immense hope and possibility. They heralded an opportunity for creative cooperation among nations, an end to ideological strife, perhaps even the beginning of a stable international order of liberal peace. But the days of optimism are over. As renowned international relations expert Michael Doyle makes hauntingly clear, we now face the devastating specter of a new Cold War, this time orbiting the trilateral axes of Russia, the United States, and China, and exacerbated by new weapons of cyber warfare and more insidious forms of propaganda. Such a conflict at this phase in our global history would have catastrophic repercussions, Doyle argues, stymieing global collaboration efforts that are key to reversing climate change, preventing the next pandemic, and securing nuclear nonproliferation. The recent, devastating invasion of Ukraine is both an example and an augur of the costs that lay in wait. However, there is hope. Putin is not Stalin, Xi is not Mao, and no autocrat is a modern Hitler. There is also an unprecedented level of shared global interest in prosperity and protecting the planet from environmental disaster. While it is unlikely that the United States, Russia, and China will ever establish a “warm peace,” there are significant, reasonable compromises between nations that can lead to a détente. While the future remains very much in doubt, the elegant set of accords and non-subversion pacts Doyle proposes in this book may very well save the world. Andrew O. Pace is a historian of moral dilemmas of US foreign relations and an adjunct professor of history at Salt Lake Community College. He is a co-host of the Diplomatic History Channel on the New Books Network and is currently working on a book about the reversal in US foreign policy from victory at all costs in World War II to peace at any price in the Vietnam War. He can be reached at apace24@slcc.edu or via andrewopace.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

In 1966 most of Bridget's friends, in their early twenties, were settling down with jobs and/or husbands… She, on the other hand, set off alone to travel across Poland relying on the kindness of strangers. Fascinated by what she experienced she continued to wander the highways and byways of, Hungary Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia for the next couple of years seeking out remote rural communities almost untouched by the passage of time... Bridget travelled with virtually no money, however, this was not a problem but an opportunity: it enabled a rare and deep insight into the lives and experiences of ‘ordinary' people in these Warsaw Pact countries. We hear how she stumbles across remote German minorities, gets arrested by border guards and finds love in a youth hostel in Munich. Buy the book here https://uk.bookshop.org/a/1549/9781915603326 Extra Photos and videos here https://coldwarconversations.com/episode352/ The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Love history? Check out Into History at this link https://intohistory.com/coldwarpod 0:00 Introduction to the episode 3:06 Bridget's journey and adventures in Poland 12:18 Bridget's job in Germany and exploration of the iron curtain 15:56 Bridget's smuggling adventure in Slovakia and visit to Hungary 26:02 Bridget's journey to Yugoslavia and her experiences there 32:04 Socio-economic situation and life experiences in Slovakia 34:36 Encounter with West German border guards 37:16 Meeting Bill in Munich and travelling to Romania 43:30 Journey to Bulgaria and experiences there 48:34 Using travel diaries to write "Cold War, Warm Hearts" 53:01 Acknowledging financial supporters and engaging with listeners on Facebook Chapters powered by PodcastAI✨ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

*) Israel agrees on 'little pauses' over Gaza strikes — Netanyahu Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel was open to “little pauses” in its bombardments. It was not clear whether some kind of small stoppage had been agreed to or whether the US was satisfied with the scope of the Israeli commitment. US President Joe Biden had raised the need for humanitarian pauses, but there was no agreement reached, according to the White House. Netanyahu also underlined that there would be no general ceasefire in Gaza, without the release of the hostages. *) Gaza death toll exceeds grim 10,000 mark as Israeli onslaught continues The death toll in Gaza exceeded 10,000 after one month of Israeli bombardment, the Health Ministry in the besieged enclave has said, as the offensive against the Palestinians showed signs of intensifying. Hundreds of overnight strikes pushed the death toll to 10,022, mostly women and children, a spokesperson for the Palestinian Health Ministry, told a press conference on Monday afternoon. The toll included 4,104 children and 2,641 women, according to the ministry. *) Israel minister's Gaza nuclear comment was wholly unacceptable: US The United States has condemned as "wholly unacceptable" comments by an Israeli cabinet member who appeared to voice openness to the idea of Israel carrying out a nuclear strike on Gaza. "We continue to believe that it is important for all sides of this conflict to refrain from hateful rhetoric," deputy State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel told a media briefing. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday disciplined the cabinet member in question. *) 118 aid trucks enter Gaza through Rafah crossing Palestine Red Crescent Society has announced that it had received 118 aid trucks through the Rafah border crossing, bringing the total number of trucks that entered Gaza since October 21 to 569. They said the trucks contained “food, water, relief assistance, medical supplies and medications, while fuel has not been allowed to enter as of now.” *) Russia officially withdraws from European armed forces treaty Russia has formally withdrawn from a key post-Cold War security treaty designed to de-escalate potential East-West conflicts, in a latest sign of rising tensions between Russia and NATO. The 1990 treaty, negotiated and concluded at the end of the Cold War and signed a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, placed limits on the deployment of military equipment to maintain military balance between NATO and the then-Warsaw Pact countries. Russia suspended its participation in the treaty in 2007 and halted active participation in 2015.

Denmark joined NATO as a founding member in 1949. However, it originally laid down limitations to NATO membership, effectively excluding the country from full military integration. The conditions were threefold: no non-Danish bases, no nuclear warheads, and no Allied military activity on Danish territory. Bo Hermansen served in a conscript reconnaissance platoon of the Danish Jutland Dragoon Regiment during the 1980s. His squadron was part of the divisional reconnaissance for the Danish Jutland division which was tasked to move into the north of West Germany and link up with West German units to stop a Warsaw Pact advance into Jutland. Bo describes Denmark's political stance during this period where the election of President Reagan in the US and his policies regarding defence caused some concern in Denmark and elsewhere in Europe. We hear of his unit's tactics against the Warsaw Pact, the exercises he participated in, the rivalry between units, and why a Danish tank was painted pink! It's a fascinating view into the organisation and tactics of one of the lesser-known members of NATO. Extra episode information here https://coldwarconversations.com/episode315 The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Love history? Check out Into History at this link https://intohistory.com/coldwarpod 0:00 Introduction to the episode and guest Bo Hermansen 7:31 Bo's decision to join the military and family reactions 12:33 Training, challenges, and transition to a professional soldier 19:46 Role and composition of the 5th Battalion of the Jutland Dragoon Regiment 28:42 Preparations for war: Major exercises and deployment practice 35:16 Relations with the Germans and other international troops during the Cold War 43:45 Importance of history and ethos in the Jutland Dragoons 51:32 Transition to green and black paint for Danish vehicles: Controversies and anecdotes 1:00:09 Escape and survival training in the Danish Army 1:08:06 Dedication to Bo's platoon and episode extras 1:08:33 Closing remarks Table of contents powered by PodcastAI✨ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SynopsisOn today's date in 1950, Karel Ančerl was named the artistic director of the Czech Philharmonic, a position he would hold for the next 18 years.Ančerl had first conducted the orchestra in 1930, when, upon graduation from the Prague Conservatory, he led that ensemble in one of his compositions. For a time, Ančerl debated whether to be a composer or a conductor. He opted for the latter, demonstrating a mastery of classical and contemporary scores with other orchestras in Czechoslovakia.With all that in mind, it might not seem all that surprising that in 1950, he was eventually tapped to lead the Czech Philharmonic — but that would be ignoring the miracle that Ančerl was even alive in 1950.In 1942, Ančerl and his family were imprisoned in the Nazis' notorious Theresienstadt concentration camp, and, in 1944, they were transported to Auschwitz, where his wife and young son were killed. He alone survived.In 1968, when Czechoslovakia was invaded by Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops, Ančerl emigrated to Canada in protest and served as music director of the Toronto Symphony until his death in 1973.Music Played in Today's ProgramBohuslav Martinu (1890 - 1959) Symphony No. 5 - Czech Philharmonic; Karel Ancerl, cond. Supraphon SU-3694-2

You are listening to part 2 of my chat with Joe who joined the USAF in 1981 and was trained to fly the A10 Warthog a single-seat, twin-engine jet aircraft designed to provide close air support to ground forces by attacking tanks, armoured vehicles, and other ground targets. Part 1 is here https://coldwarconversations.com/episode305/ In 1985 Joe is sent to 92nd Tactical Fighter Squadron at RAF Bentwaters in the UK, just over 50 miles from where his father served in World War 2. His role was to fly the A10 over West Germany and attack Warsaw Pact ground forces should the Cold War turn hot. We hear about the perils of flying the A10 at only 100 feet in mist and rain, whilst navigating with a map on your knee in the days before GPS was available.  Joe also recounts visiting the Inner German border and driving to his wartime target sectors to see what they looked like from the ground. He describes how they trained for landing on West German autobahns as well as their tactics against enemy aircraft. Joe also flew the Royal Air Force's VTOL fighter, the Harrier, and tells of the challenge of managing the controls and his respect for the Royal Air Force. Visit the RAF Bentwaters Museum here https://www.bcwm.org.uk/ Extra episode information https://coldwarconversations.com/episode306 The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Support the project! https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Love history? Join Intohistory on this link https://intohistory.com/coldwarpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tom lived in western Poland in an area that had been part of Germany until the end of World War 2. He describes how his grandmother settled in this area and the strangeness of taking over formerly German houses and apartments. Tom's grandfather on his mother's side was a Communist activist who worked for the Polish security services which created some tension as Tom's father dodged the draft into the Polish Army. Tom describes his childhood in some detail, highlighting the contrasts of life in Cold War Poland versus some of the Warsaw Pact countries such as how the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church managed to co-exist with the Communist government. He is 11 years old when the free trade union Solidarity is made illegal and martial law is declared by the Polish Communist authorities. Tom describes how life changes under martial law and the suppression of Solidarity demonstrations. We end with the poignant story of his Grandmother's experiences as a forced labourer in Germany during World War 2.  Extra episode information https://coldwarconversations.com/episode304 The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Support the project! https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Love history? Join Intohistory https://intohistory.supercast.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Political scientist Ethan Scheiner appeared on Chatter in early 2022, right before the Olympics in Beijing, to talk about the fascinating intersection of politics, security, and Olympic events. This week, he returns to talk about the compelling connections between hockey and international relations--with a special focus on Czechoslovakia before, during, and after the Cold War. His new book, Freedom To Win, uses the stories of a range of larger-than-life characters across several decades to describe the importance of international hockey play to the Czech and Slovak national experience and to increase awareness of a too-little-known quest for freedom from oppression.David Priess and Scheiner discussed the broad intersection of hockey and politics, the intensity of the Swedish-Finnish rivalry on the ice, the origins of the game in Europe, how Czechoslovakian hockey players used their sport to fight back against Soviet domination, the 1969 Ice Hockey World Championships in Stockholm, prominent sports figures' defections from the Warsaw Pact countries during the Cold War, the internationalization of the US National Hockey League, hockey in the former Czechoslovakia after the end of Communist rule in Eastern Europe, and more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The Chatter episode The Olympics, Politics, and SecurityThe book Freedom to Win: A Cold War Story of the Courageous Hockey Team that Fought the Soviets for the Soul of its People--and Olympic Gold, by Ethan ScheinerChatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I speak with author Ethan Scheiner whose book “Freedom to Win” describes the gripping story of a group of small-town young men who would lead their underdog hockey team from Czechoslovakia against the Soviet Union, the juggernaut in their sport. In 1968 Czechoslovakia is experiencing the Prague Spring, an attempt to moderate and soften communism. However, a sudden invasion by 500,000 Warsaw Pact soldiers halts the reforms. We hear the inspiring story of how the young players of the national hockey team battle the Soviets on the ice to keep their people's quest for freedom alive and forge a way to fight back against the authoritarian forces that sought to crush them. Buy the book here and support the podcast https://uk.bookshop.org/a/1549/9781639363513 Book giveaway entry info here https://coldwarconversations.com/giveaway/ The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Extra episode information https://coldwarconversations.com/episode298/ Prague Spring and Cold War Czechoslovakia episodes https://coldwarconversations.com/tag/czechoslovakia/ Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Support the project! https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices