Good afternoon. And thank you for joining us today for our event. Mauled by the bear understanding the war in Ukraine. The event today is sponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences. Departments of language or languages, literatures, and Cultures. The Department of Political science and International Relations and the European studies program. We very much appreciate your being here today. And I especially want to thank our College of Arts and Sciences, the events team and Colleen pop, because this got thrown on their plate Friday afternoon. And so it's incredible to me that this has come together so quickly and so effectively. I think you're going to be very excited by this panel and the things you're going to learn today. Once the panelists finished with their presentations and discussion, there will be the opportunity for those who are in the audience to ask questions. There are microphones at both ends of the auditorium. If you want to ask a question, please come down to the might get the appropriate time and be prepared to do that. I also simply want to note without having any specifics for you, that political science and international relations is planning to do a couple more events over the next couple of weeks related to the war in the Ukraine. Both a panel with our international relations scholars focusing on the dramatic potential upheaval in the international order that represents. And we hope in addition, a panel or two with folks on the ground in the region, both UD students and some other scholars as well. So watch for that. We'll announce those as soon as we have the details figured out. So with that having been said, I'm going to turn this over to our moderator today. Dan Green, who is Associate Professor of Political Science here at the University of Delaware. Professor Green will moderate the panel and get us going. So Professor Green, Thank you very much for that introduction. I'm not going to do anything more than really timekeeper. We're here at the mall by the bear panel today to try and understand the crisis and more unfolding in Ukraine right now. History is happening. Basically. Events are shifting. The plate tectonics of human affairs as we speak every day brings new amazing events. As a professor of International Relations History, I can tell you that so far the month of February 2022 is probably the most consequential since September 2001. And it may come to rival the earth-shaking changes of 980, 990 when the Cold War itself ended. Here to help us make sense of it all. Or for Udi experts, three on this panel and one virtual for you to be experts on Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, international security and international relations. I will be keeping time. Each professor will speak for about eight minutes. I think we might have a few minutes of back and forth amongst the panelists after that, but we do want to get straight to questions from a very nice audience. Thank you for coming as soon as possible. And as we said, we have two mikes here for for coming up for questions. Our first speaker is Dr. Stuart Kauffman in the Political Science Department. He's professor of Political Science and International Relations here at UT. In 999, he was the director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs, President Clinton's National Security Council staff. So if it was 999, you would be on CNN every once in awhile. Please come up. Stewart gone. If it's okay, I'm going to speak from here. Thanks gap. Actually, I would not have been on CNN. I was definitely one of the, the backstage kinds of staffers. Anyway, I'm going to address basically two questions in my eight minutes. Basically, what is potent thinking? First, second, how is the work going? So on the what is potent thinking question, I first want to say a lot of what he's thinking about is his understanding of history, which I think is incredibly important. But was to historians on the panel. I'm not going to get into that except to say, listen to the other panelists because it's really important. So when, when people try to understand what, what Putin is doing and what he's thinking. They have. There's a few standard explanations that people tend to trot out. Explanation number one is that Putin is a rational actor and he's responding to threats. The argument is he feels threatened. And so therefore he's reacting. From this point of view that the pivotal issue is nato enlargement. Which is a process that's been going on for, for close to three decades. You'll first Poland and East Central Europe joined nato than the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Now there's talk of Ukraine and Georgia joining nato. And so the Russians feel that they're being slowly surrounded. And you know, as, as Putin himself has asked repeatedly and various speeches. And he's saying, Who is this aimed against? Was the threat supposed to be from, or is it a threat to us? And on this, on this score is very important to notice that which both VD has not, that President Biden reiterated a commitment that Ukraine will sooner or later join nato just last fall. So if there was a triggering event that, that sparked this off coming from outside of Russia. That was it. It was George W Bush who put the idea of Ukraine being in nato on the agenda all the way back in 2008. But Biden reiterating it certainly was a continued step in this direction of making Russia feel threatened. The other sort of threat that Putin worries about is an internal revolution. He watched numerous cases of autocrats in neighboring former Soviet republics, Ukraine, twice, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, overthrown by their own people. As, as an old KGB operative, Putin is absolutely convinced that this was all organized by Western intelligence. And he thinks he's next on the list. So he sees these threats as being both kinda military, political from nato and internal subversion. So from this perspective, Putin attack because it's backwards against the wall, he felt like he had no other choice. Theory number 2 is put in as a thug. This is, this sounds simplistic, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. The fact of the matter is that if you look at what Putin's demands have been consistently, and in fact, even Yeltsin before him. The Russian position has long been that they want the ability to veto key Western security initiatives. Basically, when, when nato or the West US, something like the war in Kosovo, the war in Bosnia, the, the, the attack on Libya, or something like deploying missile defenses in Europe, even if it's aimed against Iran. Russia wants a veto on all that stuff. That's been the content consistent position of the Russians forever, or for 30 years anyway. And they haven't gotten it. But then, you know, Putin has upped his demands even further. And his recent demands before the war were essentially to demand a rollback of nato. So not just no more nato expansion, but pull it back in the sense of no new military deployments in any of those Eastern European member states of nato. So in other words, it's okay if ponens in nato, as long as you don't actually do anything to defend it, right? So, so from this perspective, Putin is acting because his attempts it intimidation, failed. Threats alone did not work enforcing a rollback of nato. So he's trying war as a way to divide and intimidate the West. App, acting as a thug, as a bully. Trying to intimidate the West into conceding Russian dominance in Eastern Europe. Theory number three, also simplistic but not necessarily wrong, is that Putin is crazy. You know, from this point of view, the historical views that my fellow panels we'll talk about are not just wrong, there are unhinged. I mean, they're just crazy. Furthermore, he, he appears to see himself. He seems to have delusions of grandeur. Quite frankly, he thinks he's a great leader who will restore Russian greatness. He's also see, and I'm sure you've all seen this on the news. Puente is seen as isolated from, from his advisers, isolated from reality. So from this perspective, the interpretations, the psychological won the war is an adolescent type outburst in which Putin is taking out his accumulated frustration over all of these geopolitical issues. Taking them out on whoever can, which is Ukraine, his advisers, and whoever else. So the reason I go through all three of these is that I think all of them have an element of truth. And that's really important because what works to deal with one of those problems doesn't work for the other two. So what that means is that I don't think it was nato expansion. I don't think it was primarily what Biden deter or any other Western leader did. This is coming primarily from Putin himself personally. So in that respect, I don't think there's really much Biden could have done to prevent this. So question two, how is the war go? In short badly from both sides? The media line is that that Russia's running into more trouble than expected, which appears to be true. They fail to deliver a quick knockout blow. They've suffered some setbacks. But the fact remains that the Ukrainians are outnumbered out gunned. Keeve is surrounded their capital city. And I think it's simply a matter of time before, before they lose the conventional war. Before that happens, there's likely to be urban fighting, which is likely lead to mass civilian casualties. So brace yourselves. My expectation is tens of thousands of people are going to be dead. And millions of people will be refugees. Before this even quiets down, right? It hasn't even begun to reach its peak of military intensity. If there's a gorilla phase 0. So what this means is mass artillery bombardment and aerial bombardment of cities. There's a guerilla war phase. The scale of atrocities will get even worse. And you'll, unfortunately, I don't see any way out of this other than through. And that means all these horrible things are going to happen. And then you're going to have a frozen conflict of some sort, light of the sort that are in other parts of that region. And with guerrilla warfare continuing for who knows how long, sell them I want, I'm pretty pessimistic. Thank you very much, Stuart, that was perfectly on time. Our next speaker is Dr. Holly Meyers. Dr. Myers is an assistant professor of Russian and Chair of the Russian Language Program in the Department of Languages, literatures, and Cultures, where she also teaches Russian language from beginning to advanced. Her research focuses on Soviet and post-Soviet cultural narratives of war and violence, including the Soviet Afghan war and the ongoing Syrian civil war. So should maybe be able to tell us the interesting things about the Russian military. Thank you. Good. Thank you. So continuing the line of thought about Putin and the arguments he's making and why and how effective they are. You know, he's enlisted cultural texts, right, and made cultural arguments to justify his invasion of Ukraine. And he's been building this up over the last several years. But I don't think that these arguments as much as he might want them to explain or justify his action. Actually do explain when he's doing. And in fact, maybe unexpectedly for him are undermining our, undermining him in his own country and leading and part two, the protests of thousands of Russians and cities all across Russia. So, you know, my, my cultural perspective on the cultural interconnectedness of the Russian and Ukrainian people and the cultural significance in particular of that city, Kiev. It's not meant in any way to excuse or explain his decision to invade Ukraine. But there have been some questions I've heard about, you know, so well, why wouldn't, as Alinsky leave to you to move further West, to leave, you know, and why, if you're paying attention to the Russian language media, is there 0 mention of the the Russian army in Kiev and bombing and shelling Kiev, unless that's changed in the last few hours. That's been what I've noticed in the Russian language. State-sponsored media coverage of Ukraine. So in his the written commentary on Ukraine, Putin will sometimes publish articles on the Kremlin website, as well as give our long history lesson speeches. He refers to ancient legends that are recorded and what we call an English, their primary Chronicles BUT IT, or in Russian or the money that the tail of bygone years. And you know, it may seem sort of arcane reference to us, but it's something that schoolchildren study and Russia as early as grade six and then return to throughout their years in school. So it's a reference that would be immediately familiar to resonate with Russian audiences that he's speaking to. So I want to give a little bit of context for this, this text and also speak to the significance of t, of culturally and spiritually to Russians. The earliest extant manuscripts for this document is dated 13, 77, but it began to be compiled and the 12th century by monks and Kiev. So it's very, very, very old. And it begins quote, These are the narratives of bygone years regarding the origin of the land of reus. That's the name for MIT, the medieval Russian state, reus. The first princes of Kiev and from what source the land of roofs had its beginning. And so from there we get the history of the Slavic peoples, actually connecting their story all the way back to Noah and then on to Andrew the Apostle, who stops on his way to Rome to look at some hills and proclaim so shall the favor of God shine upon them that on the city, it, on the spot, a great city shall arise and God shall erect many churches there and he blesses the hills, sets up a cross. This is Kyiv. This is what will become key. Later on, three brothers found the town. They name it Kiev and honor of the eldest brother. At this point though, the Slavs are there still pagan? Later on, prints I leg, known as a leg the profit, a leg the wise, he's ruling and know if got it in the North. And he decides to go with, with some Russian troops to Kiev to make it the mother, the mother of Russian cities. And this is a quote that Putin, you'll find in many of his speeches Hitler for her to give as the mother of all Russian cities. So this is where that line comes from. And thus it was Prensa leg unites the Eastern Slavs and the Eastern Slavs. This is a, comes from a linguistic categorization that refers to the Russian language, Ukrainian language, and the Belarusian language. These are the East Slav languages. So Aliyah egg unites the Eastern Slavs and this new center of this political and cultural center, Kiev. And then, and then this insignificant and 9088 is the year in this text, that principle, edema finally decides to convert the Pagans laws to Orthodoxy. And this happens again and it happens in the river the EFR, their famous paintings from the early 20th century of the conversion ordered by Prince Vladimir. And you see the river that runs through today with old people, women, men, children, all and this river being baptized and being converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. And so this is also, this is why Putin would refer to give so many times. This is why he would refer to this shared history and religion of the Russian and Ukrainian people. It is not only in this text, it then reappears and Russian literature that's also studied extensively in schools and Russia. To give one example, Alexander gave its Pushkin. I can't not talk about Pushkin, of course, this, the Russian Shakespeare he's called. He is the, the founder of modern Russian literature at the beginning of the 19th century, he, there are statues to Pushkin and every city and Russia and Ukraine and in Kyiv. And 820 for example, he writes an epic fairy tale about principle edema and his daughter Lyudmila. It's called respawn and Lyudmila. And in this poem which is set in this ancient Kiev, there the epithets for the city of fair light, golden dome, golden domed. And very early in the poem we're told there as an in Kyiv is the Russian spirit. It even smells of reus. And I mean, these are lines that regressions will have memorize too many of them. And so it can go on and that, that, that the, the symbol of Kiev resonates so deeply with Russians listening to Putin speaking. And think that this has something to do, certainly their military and other policy related considerations, but something to do with why there are no photos in Russian language state-sponsored media of Kiev. There no, there's no reporting of Russian soldiers and HIV and what they're doing right now, bombing buildings. And in fact, what you do see I thought is yes, yeah, I think it was. There are the so-called debunking of fake news. They'll show photos that in the Western media news reports of Kiev being bombed. And they'll, they'll claim that these photos are faked, that they're actually photos of Zheng ask or look MSK instead of give and write. And so I think I'll stop there. But just to say that this, this What's happening now in the Russian language state media is this sort of blackout. And information about he is at least in part because of the special, special cultural and religious significance that the city holds for Russians. Thank you very much Holly. Our next speaker is Dr. David share from the history department. Dr. Shear is the Thomas months and Keith Professor of History here at UD. He specializes in Soviet and 20th century history. And his publications focus mainly on the Soviet era of the 1920s and 1930s. Thank you. I have a feeling that after listening to Stuart and Holly, I should just say what they said. But I'm an academic so I have to talk. So what I want to do is take a few minutes to talk about potent vision of the world. And I'd particularly, and particularly what I see as a rather significant shift in that vision which has occurred I just recently but has come to the fore recently. Which I think says a lot about why he's doing what he's doing now. Until last Monday. As Stuart pointed out, Putin has played serfs, has put on several faces. He's acted in primarily as, in his role as a calculating strategist in pursuing Russia's interests against perceived threats to Russia. And especially from, as Stuart said, from nato, from the West. And in Ukraine, of course, being a part of that alliance. He strongly opposed, has oppose natal policies of Eastern movement and especially potentially Ukrainian participation in the Western European defense alliance system. Putin also has positioned himself as the defender of the Russian populations in Eastern Ukraine, supposedly being suppressed by the Ukrainian nationalist regime. This part of his idea of Nazis and fascists, I, and his, one of his demands of courses for the, the autonomy of those two regions. You might agree or disagree with that. I think there's perhaps some, some logic and some a kernel of truth in that. But this was a, this was a position that one could at least understand. A rational position with various points that could be discussed in diplomatic and strategic talks. So this was potent, the calculating strategist playing what many people thought was a, we can rather definitely then came his speech last Monday evening. This rambling feverish history lesson about why Ukraine never really existed as a country. Ukraine, he claimed was an artificial creation of early Soviet history, especially Vlad teamers, original sin is he call it of creating semi autonomous republics within a federation of the Soviet Union rather than creating a unitary state. In his mind, Ukraine had always been an integral part of Russian lands until 1922, when the Soviet, the new Soviet constitution destroyed the historical unity of Russia and Ukraine by granting Ukraine some kind of territorial integrity. So the very existence of Ukraine in his mind is an artificial product of the Soviet Union, of Soviet history. In his vision, Russia should have been reunited with Ukraine in 990 one. After the collapse. When the USSR collapsed, he believed that the two historically integrated entities should be, should be combined together and of course, with capital in Russia. But he says it wasn't, he says this in a speech. It wasn't because of corrupt Nationalist and fascist leaders who wanted power for themselves. This history, of course, is a concoction. It ignores a number of historical realities such as that small fact that Ukraine was an independent state from 1917 and until 920 one when the Moscow based russian Bolsheviks actually conquered militarily, just sort of a slight technicality there. But Putin did not create this idea. This notion of Ukraine as a historical part of Russia, as Holly explain, has very deep roots going back to that time in memorial, but certainly at least back into the Slavophiles ideals of the mid 19th century. It's even expressed in Russian linguistically of Ukraine as something on the edge, on the periphery. Of which literally that's what in the old way, That's how you would talk about Ukraine on, on the edge, on the periphery, which of course begs the question, the edge or periphery of what? Well, of course, of Russia, for those of you who are Russian speakers before 990 one, russians, use the phrase now crania to refer to Ukraine. Ukraine. Rather than the crying after 990 one, the Russian Ukrainian Government insisted that Ukraine be referred to as the Ukraine. That is, in Ukraine, a territorially distinct entity. Potent, reverted to the old language, no criteria, that is to say the lands on the periphery of Russia. So this is Putin's image of Ukraine, a territory historically attached to Russia, an integral to Russia and Russia place in the world as a great power. It's difficult for us to imagine the depth of Putin's in indignation, the indignation and humiliation of many super Russian nationalists. That sense of loss of humiliation, having Ukraine taken away from it, bears strong similarities to the insult in the indignation expressed by radical right German nationalist about losing German lands in Poland and Eastern and Central Europe after World War 1. In the 1920s, the image of an emasculated Germany, and I use that word in all its gendered qualities. They, this image of an emasculated Germany gave a strong impetus to fascist movements such as the National Socialists, who promised to restore the German lands in German imperial greatness. And we all saw how that turned out. So we see in Putin speech, similar kinds of really rabid humiliation and historical grievance about losing Ukraine. So in his speech, Putin abandon his identity as a calculating strategist and instead, he stepped into the role and took up the mantle of being once more the glorious savior of Russia. The mythical warrior figure of the Bogut here, the gatherer of Slavic peoples under the great Russian banner. There was no word in his speech about nato or western aggression. Only one brief mentioned at the end about supporting done yachts can do GSK next morning. Of course. After the speech on Tuesday, the 24th, it became clear what was behind the speech. Not a military operation to protect these Russian speaking lands, but a full-scale invasion to recover the lost Russian hinterlands. So this is how potent now defines himself, not to calculating strategist, but the Russian warrior gatherer of the Slavic nations. He has defined now by this war and its outcome, this war will define his legal legacy and he has no choice, I think, but to remain committed to it. So from this shift in his role or his his perception of the world, I would draw a couple of conclusions about what may come next. First, I agree with Stuart, the war, but I think we'll intensify. It will become extraordinarily brutal over the next days and weeks. Potent, at least right now, cannot back down. He will destroy his legacy. He will destroy everything that he's now staked his reputation on. But, and second, finally, I think the time is ultimately not on his side. Over the years, Putin has based his legitimacy and popularity on his ability to create economic and social stability in Russia. That has been key to his power. That is now gone. As Russians are seeing before their eyes within hours, within several days, the stunning and really almost unbelievable implosion of their economy. What those characteristics are. Examples of that we can go into. I think it would actually be an interesting part of our discussion to talk about the actual economic impact that this war is having in Russia and what that might mean for Putin. But since I'm, I'm pretty much out of time, I'll end with just one final thought. And that is to say that I shared stewards pessimism to some extent. But I think in the long run, I think things do not bode well for Putin. The title of our panel is mauled by the bear, but it's still not quite clear to me who was going in the end to be mauled by, by this war. So let me stop there and give it over to Pauling. Thank you very much. Professor. Sure. That was 1.5 minutes over, but I'm I'm I'm going to allow it. I'm going to allow it. I and the other was one. That's okay. Our final speaker is Dr. coming to us via Zoom. Is Dr. Pauli differ. She's an Assistant Professor of History and director of the Jewish Studies Program here at UT. She's a historian of East European and Russian Jews in the era of the two world wars. And teachers Modern Jewish history, the Holocaust and comparative genocide. There were doctors over def group. Okay. Good afternoon. But I conveyed via Zoom. Thank you all to have all of the panelists for all your important remarks. It's really an honor to follow up on them. This invasion, watching the citizens of Ukraine fight for their existence as a country. This is very personal. To me. My parents and my sister were born and raised in Kiev. In my family has lived in Ukraine more generations going back than I can trace. And I'm a first-generation American. I still have aunts and uncles were living in Kiev right now and regularly talking to them on skype. Also, it was really great to see students come out on the green today and to stand in solidarity with with Ukraine. So those of you who have personal family connections, like I can understand, it's a very emotional time where appear to address some of Booleans grievances to understand why this has happened. And the Russian government has attack Ukraine on a pretense that the Ukrainian government is committing crimes against humanity and that Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine faced genocide. And these are the claims so-called grievances I would like to address. It's rather well-known now Bruton has claimed one of his goals of invading Ukraine has been to quote unquote Dina ossify the country and to replace the leadership with is what he means by that is to replace the leadership with his own people. And I want to take a few minutes to explain why, why this is such a great lie. And as Lies go, It's a big Y. Big Y. First, the claim about Russian language speakers being oppressed is grossly false. These are false atrocity stories. Back Russian speakers in Ukraine, they enjoy greater rights, freedom of speech than Russian speakers in Russia. We also need to understand that the Russian government, as it is not just abusing the term genocide, but also mocking the memory of World War Two in Ukraine when there really was a genocide. And Soviet Ukraine was decimated under Nazi German occupation. Between 941, 945, millions of Ukrainian soldiers died fighting the Germans. And they fought like hell to defeat fascism. Ukraine's president will edema does Alinsky has rebuke Putin's claims and me, his own grandfather, He's noted with fought in the infantry of the Soviet Army during World War II. It is also not widely known, but it is important to know that the Alinsky is the grandson of Holocaust victims. The president, in other words, the president of the country that claims he needs to d not suffice Jewish. At 1. In fact, both the President and Prime Minister of Ukraine were Jewish. And observers of pointed out that this has never happened in any country outside of Israel. When I say this, not to suggest this has anything to do with whether they're good or bad politicians, but rather just to underscore the absurdity of prudence allegations about D not suffocation. I'd like to read to you just a few words. These are powerful statement written by Timothy Snyder, historian, what I really admire in an op-ed was published in The Boston Globe last Friday, February 25th. It is hard to think of something darker than invading a democracy with a Jewish leader in the name of fighting Nazis. When a political leader invokes genocide and Nazis in a way that Putin has done. He has mocking people who actually care about history and insulting people who survived and remember. Mockery of the Holocaust is shocking that people do not wish to believe that it is happening, but it is happening right now. A final point on, I'll close here. I want to also emphasize it's important not to idealize Ukraine like any other country. It has its share of right-wing extremism and violent xenophobic groups. And there are dark chapters in its history too, including its history of World War II, including people who didn't collaborate with Nazis, exterminating Jews. Ukrainian people can do more to acknowledge and assume responsibility for this and to fight extremism in the present day. But acknowledging this aspect of Ukraine's past and present in no way justifies russian aggression and the gross miss characterization of Ukraine or its leaders. And so in closing, I just want to reiterate, we must support with all our resources diplomatic and economic and moral and cultural. Ukraine's right to freedom and sovereignty. Thanks very much. Thank you everybody for a great opening statements. I think we could have time for any responses to each other's points, questions for each other. If anybody has anything they'd like to add or say or footnote. I have one small thing to add. If I'm a professor shares point about the preposition versus nah. I mean, it seems a small thing and yet it's there. It's volatile right now amongst Russian speakers and become a, a marker and away. Which side of this conflict here sympathies lie. And it's something that Russian speakers, whether they want to say that okay or not. Okay? And yeah, I feel very strongly about Yeah. I thought I'd add a couple of things that didn't come up, but I think might in Q and a. So I might as well mentioned them now. One is, what about those negotiations that are, that happened today? So a journalist asked me this yesterday and he opened it with, Are these real ones, real negotiations are fake ones. And I said they're fake ones. So that's, that's important to keep in mind. The purpose of these negotiations is for Putin to be able to say if in case somebody asks, Well, I offered them piece, I offered them the opportunity to surrender and they said no. So it's their font. So yeah, so don't put any, any faith in those negotiations presence. Alinsky was very clear that, you know, that, that he knew this all along. That the Russians sent a former minister of culture to be the leader of the delegation, right? So somebody 0 negotiating authority. Just a messenger boy saying surrender or else. So that's it for negotiations. Second thing is when you think about it and poly me this point, we want to support the Ukrainians and everything we can. On the other hand, potent keeps on making these nuclear weapons threats. And we have to take that very, very seriously. First, he had a, before the war, he had a nuclear weapons drill. Then he explicitly said, hey, remember guys, we have nuclear weapons and we're not afraid to use them in effect. And then he put his nuclear weapons on alert. Now all of this is just signaling, but what its signaling is, nato, you better stay out militarily, at the very least. So we are back in a world where an actual nuclear war is not entirely impossible. And everything else that happens needs is going to be happening in the shadow of that thread. That's some that you gotta keep in mind. I think I'll just wait and see what questions come from the audience. I had one question since we have history, culture, and language experts, I read somewhere that before 2014 the number of Ukrainians who identified as Russian was something like 30 percent. And then after 2014 and the crisis of 2014, 2015, that's now about 8%. In that. Is the identity fluid enough or people bilingual or such that you could actually drift more to being proudly Ukrainian and less Russian. Is that, Is that possible? Yes, I would say. And it's a good opportunity to make the point in place in case it's not clear that just being a Russian speaker, a native Russian speaker doesn't mean that you're not, you don't identify as Ukrainian, that you don't want to be ukrainian and that you don't want that. And also it doesn't, being a native speaker doesn't mean that you want to be part of the Russian Federation. It is. And maybe as one just small cultural example, if I may. What's happening with television right now in Ukraine or since 2014? This is really interesting. Ukraine is after 2014, band. Any Russia created content to be new, Russia created content to be broadcast. And Ukraine, Ukraine continued to make Russian language television content that they would export to Russia, but they had to be very careful. Some of the bands on the Ukrainian created content, while Russian language was not allowed to show any Russian military police officer uniforms or Soviet uniforms. And they, there was a list of Russian actors who were banned from participating in the Ukrainian created Russian language television content. Versus saying being too outspoken about anti Ukraine, with anti Ukraine propaganda. And just, there's just one TV show that I think really illustrates this point that was made in Ukraine called a good cop, bad cop, plush toy cuddle. She cope. And the I just copied the blurb for what? The description is. Bad cop, good cop. It's a detective action theories about how the new police and old police get along. Representative of the old schools performed by a famous Russian actor. You've guinea see deacon. And he is the experienced expert on the criminal world, but also knocks out evidence and takes bribes. The representative of the new police who has modern investigative skills as played by a young Ukrainian actor, Vladimir diets. And together they will have to solve a complicated case. Which of them will turn out to be a backup and which one? A good cop. So this is the description of this TV series on this Ukrainian production company's website. And it wasn't very long lived, but it did air and Russia, as well as in Ukraine. But do you have yeah, just 11, I guess. Yes. Your impression this is correct. And it's difficult to know what percentages, percentages might be, but the annexation of Crimea did in fact increase Ukrainian feelings among Russian speakers in Ukraine. And I would also say that in the last month, no one has done more for, for mobilizing Ukrainian sentiment and nationalism among Russian speakers in Ukraine that Vladimir Putin, absolutely. And especially now that the, the, the, the, the clips you hear coming from Russian speakers in Ukraine that you can hear them over the translation. They're speaking in Russian. And they, they meant no words about what they think of this invasion. And the other getting tangled in my mask. Any other points from the panel? Doctors, other def GRE you okay. Wherever you are in space out and the Ethernet. Alright, well, I don't, I have more questions, but I think we should turn to the audience. We've got about half an hour left. So if you would like to ask a question, come up to either Mike. I guess we're not just going to raise hands type of deal and yell. It's always good to have a question from students first. From the X-Files. Go ahead. Yes. I think my question is, do you do you think another country will be next in line for an invasion from Putin, or is Ukraine such a unique set of circumstances that would not be really possible for him. The light say I want to invade Lithuania, Poland because thousands of years ago we were once one big country, but now we're not. Do you think the same thing could happen with another country or is Ukraine kind of just a unique case? Yeah, That is a great question. So I'll I'll take first crack at it. I would say that at least in principle, it is entirely possible. I would start with Estonia and Latvia as being next on the list because it's a large number of ethnic Russians in those countries and of course they were part of the Soviet Union. You know, he's also got designs on Moldova, is separatist region, is, is, is a Russian speaking on Georgia. On the other hand, I think he's going to be in fact bogged down in, in Ukraine. So he may well have been thinking that Estonia, Latvia, or both was next. But, but I, I don't think effect that's going to happen because things are not going well forming Ukraine. Yeah, I would I would add that there's a significant difference now between his aspirations and his capabilities. And unless he has really become delusional. He had an especially given the last few days. The idea of him going up against nato just seems to be out of the question. But that does leave open Moldova. Moldova. As Stuart said, there's, there's still and there are actually, there's a Russian division that's still stationed in, in Moldova. So that's an easy target and it's just straight across, straight west from, uh, Ukraine. There's still the frozen conflict in Georgia as well. So that's also a possibility, but I, I agree with Stuart that the Northern the northern areas are, are pretty much blocked by nato. I mean, I, I keep wondering, is he going to invade Finland? And that's actually, again, potent and sort of cutting off his nose despite his face in all of this because I doubt there's sort of increased public discussion in Finland about joining nato. And who's responsible for that. Olga. Yeah, so are, or you're not thinking about Kazakhstan, which also has a large ethnic Russian population, particularly in the north where the Russian border is and is has lost its longtime dictator. And it's not exactly at democracy, but protests and Russian troops were sent n, Yeah, not long ago. Yeah. So personally I'm counting on Russian racism to solve that problem up front. Why did it, did it, did a study of, of, you know, a lot of potential IRA dent in East Central Europe and fat for example, that Romania doesn't want Moldova because it has too many Russians in it. And the Hungarians don't want Transylvania because there's too many Romanians in it. So similarly, I don't think the Russians want Kazakhstan because I think they think it has too many Kazakhstan. Well, actually, Cossacks are a minority in Kazakhstan. But still there are the northern regions and they do want that space station back. Let's keep moving with questions because hurrah, hurrah, we've got plenty. So you're next. Hi. So consider, this is a lose-lose situation for poo and either way, and that there isn't a national anticipated death. Flick the war. If any. Will there be any intervention from any countries like the United States or Europe? Because there isn't it to the patient. If somebody does, what is being done to help prevent that? It's an excellent question and the answer is, it depends what you mean by intervention, right? So there's lots of intervention with economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure and public diplomacy and all that kind of stuff. But there can't be military intervention because of that nuclear threat, right? There's the threat of nuclear escalation. So the because I like to tell my students, you know, the, the main rule of not blowing up the world during the Cold War was our varsity doesn't fight, they're varsity. So, you know, so the nato troops directly confronting Russian troops would be the potential for World War three. So direct military intervention is off the table. And you can't send peacekeepers for a variety of reasons. One of which is peacekeepers don't help very much when there's no peace to keep. Second of all, who would send them into that situation when there's no peace to keep. So yeah, so the, the, the kinds of intervention that are going to happen are going to be the non-military kinds. And unfortunately, that, That's why there's going to be millions of refugees, right? Because people are going to be wise enough to run for their lives. I might just say one thing. I don't know. I'm not a topic. I mean, this is a completely fluid situation, but it does seem to me that a steward I I agree with you, but I think coalitions could be put together at least two, to dominate airspace, to make Ukraine a no fly zone. That would be, that would not be putting military troops on the ground, but it would be a palpable threat. And I think helped change the balance of power. And that doesn't have to come from nato. That can come from any number of countries are willing to join a coalition. It would be extremely dangerous and risky, but I would not be surprised to see something like that start or emerge if the fighting becomes very, very brutal. I would assume that there are at least some covert ops going on. And I think the main way that Ukraine is going to be supported is with amazing flow of weapons and javelin anti-tank missiles and, and their anti-aircraft missile. So and that is proving very effective. And I'm assuming that there are special ops people from nato countries in there as well. So you touched briefly on the topic what the Russian economy, Russian companies suffering from his work on them in particular, how new species it has the potential to be damaged as a result of the sanctions and other various economic actions. Other nations in the international community against Russia. In the case that does not do this because of this, would be the Russian people actually be enough to change how the Russian government is. And then kind of alongside that point, I guess like if the university government did in fact respond to the people's will, is there any actual reasonable way for you to visit me, completely losing face? I don't think you would. Well, if there are if If there, if mass demonstrations really overwhelm the police, that, that's one thing. But my feeling is that initially the movement would not be, would not be coming from, from mass protests, but coming from elites within the regime who see, see their, their empires, everything else simply collapsing in front of their eyes. And who break that code of silence and, and, and come together to decide that something has to be done. So I think it would probably start with that. It would be, I would imagine more a kind of a palace coup or something like that. Then of course, if that, if that begins to happen, that'll unleash the, the, the, the mass support on the streets and then it's anybody's guess what might happen after that? Next. Yeah, Hi, again. Thank you all for your time and expertise than really interesting talk. But the main question I was having is, why is this happening now? If Ukraine has been flirting with nato, joining nato for years, and if Putin has long-held use that Ukraine should part of Russia. Why, why did this intervention happen at this point? Is it because Putin was assured that the US or nato wouldn't get involved with that. And, you know, we were to divide it internationally. So why is why did the dominoes start to fall in that group? I got I got a couple of guesses on that, but yeah, breeding somebody's mind, you're always guessing, right? So theory number 1 is, again, it's the fact that that Biden did double down. It last fall on the idea that Ukraine will someday be a nato. If he had. And this was in a, in a new formal agreement between Ukraine and nato. So so that was, that's the issue number one. Issue number two is COVID. You know, two years of becoming increasingly isolated from, from reality, from rest of the world, from his advisers. And it seems to change his mentality. That's what people who watch really closely are say. So it's combination of, you know, he was angry and frustrated anyway, and then we've got another another prick. And and why? February 24th? Yeah, Don't wait until the Olympics are over so that he didn't irritate his friend in China. That I mean, it's a happened before then I thought, well, okay. I interesting point about that. The they're having an unusually warm late winter and this is now it's presented another disadvantage for the Russians that they, they're essentially road bound now and that makes them easier targets. So I think as Holley also pointed out, that the timing has to do with whether Olympics and those kinds of things. Why he is suddenly change this persona? Was Stuart says it's anybody's guess and why other than that? Why now why not wait for a year or something like that. But I guess there's some longer term issues and also some short-term circumstances. I saw an argument that he got a big boost from a Polly wants to say something. Thank you. Somebody turn on her, right? Thanks. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Very strange to see myself projected on their site, although I don't like big brother or big sister. I just want to make the point that reiterate. I think what steward said that Biden could have made a reassuring statement that the Ukraine would not join nato, which everyone knew. I mean, what he had done, that things may have been different. I, I'm not a political scientists, but we have to think about what wars are not inevitable. I mean, they happen for certain reasons. There are the product of human decisions. And when we look back on this, I know it's unfolding now and we offered debates and theories about why, but we're going to have to look at our American diplomacy and the failure of our own side to have prevented this. I just want to make that point. That's a good point. Very good point. My small point was that I read somewhere that Putin got quite a kind of Public Relations boost after the annexation of Crimea in Russia and Russian nationalists. And he was going to annex the eastern part of Ukraine and get another boost in time for the 2014 2024 elections in Russia. I don't know if that's plausible to a political reason. My question is, with the West seemingly being more and more unified with Ukraine petitioning to join EU fin when considering joining nato. And we've said in the past during this panel that this is the turning point. It could be kind of like September the 11th or the fall of the Soviet Union. And it's kind of, are we heading for that new East versus West Cold War era in history, or is it too early to tell, considering he invaded 1, five days ago? Do we know and what can we do? I think the answer to that question is yes. Last one I gave a public lecture on Russian foreign policy was five years ago. And I said, then we're headed for civil war. Sorry for, for, for New Cold War started civil wars is my other research agenda. I said then we were headed for Cold War and I, you know, I stand by that. I think I was right then we were in a cold war before, but kinda weren't paying a lot of attention to it. But, you know, if there's any doubt, I think you'll, Germany's recent decision to massively increase their military spending. Along with the measures that that that Biden has taken has definitively determine that. Yeah, we're, we're, we're in a new Cold War. This one's different from the last one because in the last Cold War, the Soviet Union was the more powerful adversary and China was the more aggressive one. This time, China is the more powerful adversary and Russia is the more aggressive one. But it's a very similar lineup. It's my view we're we're already, we're not even at the beginning of coal of Cold War II, where several years into it. I guess as a follow-up, do I need to be concerned or just not until the bonds start falling? Well, so me so my answer would be, that's why I think it would be an extraordinarily bad idea to pursue. Professor shares idea of a no fly zone, right? That's the kind of thing that causes those bombs to start dropping. So, you know, we got through 40 years a cold war. Without the bombs dropping. The leaders of both countries said very explicitly, nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. I think that's pretty much a consensus. Um, so that, so the chances of, you know, worst-case scenario are very, very low. But only as long as everybody's very careful. And it matters an awful lot. Who's got their finger on that button, both in the, in the White House and in the Kremlin. If you think about who recently was in the White House. Well, in that case, Russia is perfectly safe. I would just add to that, that I agree with stool and I think we've been in a Cold War. And I think it will continue unless there is a real political collapse, economic and political collapse in Russia. And then, then it's going to be something like 990 one all over again. And I don't exclude that as a possibility actually, if, especially if Putin really does continue to pursue his delusional ideas. And as I guess I would say to Professor Kaufman that the bombs are already following. And so I don't know what potent may do with, with his nuclear weapons. So I keep seeing reports on the news of the Russians using mercenaries from different areas of the country, such as in Chechnya and other places. And they've been using them heavily in Ukraine. And I want to ask, why do you think that they're using these true? So, so much Is it a try and tie in these former separate regions of Russia into this cause in this war? Or is it because the soldiers don't know the Ukrainians and then it will be more likely to fight more effectively. I hadn't really thought about that question, but a year supposition, I think both suppositions are, are good. I think also it's interesting to see where the Chechens are located, mostly in Lugano, can then yes. And they are particularly brutal against Ukrainian speakers. And as a result, I think there's a combination of reasons for that. That it's not, it's not Russians that are inflicting. This is kinda brutalities against a fellow Slavs. It's Chechens. And I think there's something. I think there is something to them. Yet, there are a lot of conscripts I've read about also being sent to your brain. So there's still a mandatory military service in Russia. Men aged 827 have to serve for two years unless they have some sort of exemption. I've seen a percentage as high as 40 percent of the troops, the Russian troops being sent to Ukraine, are these 18-year-old, young men. Some called up as recently as December, according to some of the independent Russian language media. And being, and actually some of them pressured into signing a contract so that they're not on paper conscripts, but in reality that's, that's what they are. And then being sent to Ukraine, not knowing what they're doing, not wanting to be there. And there's a well-established a committee of soldiers, mothers in Russia that goes back to the end of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Afghan war. After years of mothers protesting their sons beings and daughters, things that their sons being sent to Afghanistan and the Soviet Afghan war and dying for what, right? No one could understand why their sons had to die in Afghanistan. And this committee is still active. It was especially active during the tension wars in the nineties, still active now and is trying to fight this protest, this, that these constructs conscripts being sent to Ukraine. The go-ahead. Dr. Kaufman, you'd previously said that nuclear weapons was a warning against involvement in the conflict. Do you think President Minsky's recent signing the EU application is going to affect smoothly. No. In short, you know that Ukraine can ask to join the EU. But that process takes years. So it was, at this point, it just has the effect of being a political gesture. I mean, it's a great question, but, but yeah, it's it's you know, that's that's just the start. And I don't, I don't think Ukraine being a member of the EU is realistically on the table until, you know, all of these issues are resolved, which for practical purposes means not for very long time. Good afternoon, panelists. I am a US Army nuclear and chemical weapons expert, and I've served with nato troops in Germany for a number of years. Taken the very viable threat seriously of the Russian nuclear threat. How do you suggest nato and specifically the United States going forward after the, these trying times? Well, you know, as well as anybody what what's at stake. But yeah, the answer is it can't can't be anything more specific than just be very, very cautious. The you know, if if if we're right that that a seemingly benign move like reiterating a, a, a, a, a promise to Ukraine to join nato for right, that, that was an important triggering factor in the war, which again, not clear, but it might have been, right. What that proves is precisely that you never really know for sure what's going to be the thing that's going to kick off an escalation. So yeah, so you have the answers. From my perspective is simply to take it very, very seriously. I saw on the news some congressmen being interviewed and saying, Well, brushing off the nuclear threat, saying that, that just proves that, that Putin is, is, is, is getting frustrated and he's not getting what he wanted. But that's actually the very reason why you have to take it seriously. So I think the moral of this story is is restraint. So yeah, that's my one word answer to your question. I think that first of all, in response to how should nato respond, how should the US respond? I think that arise, as I said, I think in the long run time is not on Putin side. But the, the, he needs a way out. He needs to be given a way out. And if that way can be found, I think could be found in. This is going to take some vision in a reconsideration of the whole security system in Europe. And that could start with a de facto recognition or a de facto declaration by Ukraine of its neutrality, which, which could actually place Ukraine in a tremendous position of being able to buy, to play both sides. I mean, I don't think that's necessarily giving up something. I think it puts Ukraine in a very strong position. And from that point it seems to me that, that then step-by-step, carefully, cautiously, perhaps a new security system in Europe could be, could be created. I kinda think that they missed that opportunity in 1991. I think nato lost its function in 990 one and a whole new system should have been put in place, should've been rethought. But of course, that would require real vision and political will, which, which hasn't been there. And now things are building up again to the point where no one come back down. But if they can open that door with, with, with the the invitation to say, Okay, let's talk about neutrality. Let's talk about a new kind of security system in Europe. I think that would help. I just had a follow-up question. Those think about. So in the late 1980s, 1990s, there was a treaty signed between the USSR and the United States of a nuclear weapons reduction. I believe everybody knows about that. Do you think that tree you'd be halted as an all time low between diplomatic relations between the Russians and the United States? I didn't quite understand that it's the final question. Do you think that that Weapons Treaty will be non void? Now that the relations between the Russians, the United States, is at an all-time low. That up that treaty has been updated several times, most recently by, by President Obama, cutting nuclear weapons even further from, from the 1980s levels. So we're now down to, I forget the number, something like 80 percent reductions from, from, from the height of the Cold War. And that's still an effect. So that, that treaty is still there. Every reason to believe that. That's the one thing that the United States, the Russians can still agree on is that we don't want another nuclear arms race. So if anything, I see that is a stabilizing factor. Yeah. Thank you for this wonderful panel discussion. My question on that. Well, what we see on Ukraine would a ship and American focus on American foreign policy focus from into Pacific region To you wrote back again. And can, previously, before the liberal count can be done to prevent the war broke out from a coenzyme. And my last question, pardon me, is that people saying that Ukraine is, we have a noun who can do happen to have one know, maybe later. Ali, comparable on any similarity or difference in CP case. Thank you. Stuart year, the international relations tasks that book. So I excellent questions. All I think I think the answer your first question is is clearly yes. Biden does not want to shift his focus from the Pacific to Europe, but he has to. That's that's that's that has already happened de facto. And, you know, that's just the way it is. Is there a similarity between China, Taiwan, and Russia, Ukraine? Sure. I mean, we're talking in both cases about revisionist powers that with irredentist, yeah, they say in both cases, the line of the aggressive power is those folks aren't a real country. They really belong to us, right? So the position is the same that the main difference, of course, which is not in Taiwan's favor, is that under international law, the Russians are wrong, but the Chinese are right. That Taiwan is not recognized as an independent state by the United Nations or most of the international community. So you're either China or the Chinese watching all of this very closely? Oh yes. And you know what, what conclusions they might draw is. Another conversations I think we have. Unless we are forced to shut down, we still have time for some questions. Good afternoon. I've got a very breaking news question. Cnn about 10 minutes ago, reported, along with the Washington Post, reported that the US is expelling diplomats that are from Russia to the UN as a part of the IEP, like host agreement. But also today, Switzerland finally broke its neutrality. What does that mean? Because I was pretty shocked and Switzerland broke its neutrality. Yeah, I saw that report about Switzerland and I think it is a both shocking and I think also, if any one country could produce devastating results against Russia, it would be Switzerland. And buy, depending on what exactly they said they would do. It was not clear to me whether they had decided to simply to block transactions or whether they were are considering actually seizing assets? Hard to answer your question. They froze all assets. They froze them, but are they going to seize them? That's an interesting question, but nonetheless, just freezing them is going to be pretty devastating. But that of course, sort of the icing on, on, on the cake. Because the world financial markets have essentially shut Russia down. And for example, the central bank this afternoon said that it no longer had reserves to be able to intervene to stabilize the ruble. Which means that rubles already trading at about 1 $1 to a 150 rubles. It had been study for years that about 77 or 78. And now it's a 150. And that is creating real panic, real panic in Russia. In fact, my wife just received an email from a friend in Moscow. I and said, Sir, half, seriously, should we be going out and buying toilet paper or can we wait? So I think it just as I said at the beginning, Switzerland now joining this is not only surprising, I think it's particularly devastating for, for Russia, combined with everything else. Yes. So you all laugh, but I think actually David was serious. They took that deaths here when it comes to banking, Switzerland actually has a superpower. So, so it is a big deal. It is a big deal. And a part about anyway, that depends on what I want. The given reason was asked. While if it's espionage, that it's espionage, right? So, so the US has the sort of the legal justification for doing that, even though they're accredited to the United Nations. And the timing of course is just another signal. Yeah. I don't know how much of an effect that will really have expelling diplomats. I mean, the, the, the US embassy in Moscow, It's pretty basically shut down. It's the only one. So I'm not sure what the Russians could do and retaliation, but they might expel some businesses or see some businesses, things like that. But I think the, the, the, the, the Swiss decision is really is a pretty devastating blow. I read in an article recently that angular Merkel, who said that she was one of the few leaders in the Western world that talk to Putin more than any other world leader because she also spoke Russian. And she said to Obama, and this was long before COVID, that he lives in his own world. So how could we just say that because of COVID, the worldview of Putin has changed. That's one thing. The second thing is, in fact, of course, all of us are heartbroken of what's happening today in Ukraine. But Russian side or the foreign minister of Russia said a few days ago. Well, how can you tell us that we should not go into Ukraine or any other country when the West invaded Iraq, invaded Libya, invaded Syria. Basically, all these countries are destroyed. Millions of refugees. How can you tell us that we are doing the wrong thing when you did this for the last 15, 20 years, including Afghanistan, how would you answer that too? Foreign minister of Russia. I would say that he is absolutely right and you're absolutely right. It is hypocritical of the United States. You know, lover off his said. Russians have said, we're doing nothing more than what the US has, has done. You have your Monroe Doctrine and we deserve 12 course. The US is hypocritical and not position by, by saying that Ukraine is a sovereign country and has the right to do anything it wants and you can't invade. So there's a difference, there's a difference here between principal and reality. But the principle is principal. And despite, I don't, I don't think that's a justification for the United States saying, Okay, you're on, you're just playing by the same rules as we have. I I just I don't see how that could be a justification for not trying to stop Russia. Whatever the US position is. However hypocritical it is, that doesn't justify Russia's actions, at least in my, in my mind. In other words, the two wrongs don't make a right. Yeah. Yeah. I could also argue about what the US did in Libya, especially in Syria, is nothing like what Russia is doing in Ukraine now, or for that matter, what the US did in Iraq. She has destroyed, but not by the United States. The United States did not destroy Syria. The Syrians date OSA did. I'm going to try to make this quick, but I'm Professor Kaufman. I took a class and the class the last semester. And like the big question was, It's whether or not sanctions work. And I believe in on Thursday when Biden was making his like live address, he was addressing how he's putting like full sanctions on the Russian government. And I know a question and reporter asked is, why haven't you put a sanction on Putin if you've only put it on his high officials. Why haven't they done anything about Swift's? I believe it is. Which is you wanted to mentioned before, know what the economic situation in Russia was. So I wanted you guys to like comment on that. And then really quickly, if you think like cryptocurrency will be playing a role. Because I know a lot of like Ukrainian activists Just like for instance, have been receiving some funds like via crypto. Great question. So my first answer is one of my favorite articles is entitled Why economic sanctions don't work. So, yeah, I mean, I think it's absolutely true that we have to assume that in the short run, certainly economic sanctions are not going to change anything except to raise the pain level. In Moscow. That said, these financial sanctions are sort of quicker acting than most, as, you know, as David's been pointing out, right? The, the fact that the ruble lost half its value in a matter of days, and that's, that's a big deal. The fact that, you know, the Russians have this huge stockpile of, of, of dollar denominated securities to backup their, their currency. But they hold them in overseas banks where it's been frozen. So, so Putin's been outmaneuvered on that one. All right, so, so to some extent these sanctions are biting more than one might think, and therefore, there's a somewhat better chance that they'll they'll actually have a short-term impact on the, on the Swift issue. So the I think is beginning to move towards shutting down Russian access towards the Swift System, certain banks for certain kinds of transactions. David, You probably know more about this than I do. Have already been shut off. But there's this giant gaping hole, which is that for Europeans buying Russian natural gas, you can still use it. So that's going to be a lifeline for the Russians as long as that continues to exist. So yeah, it's really complicated. Question. Short answer is yeah, if sanctions usually don't work, these are little tougher than most, but still probably won't buy themselves. Be decisive. And patent has been personally thank sense. Now, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Last question. Do you think Russia could retaliate to sanctions, the cyber warfare? And with that, if they decide to attack a nato ally with that, then invoke Article 5. Hey guys, I'm what happens? Yeah. I think the short answer is that any cyber attack will be responded to by cyber attack. Yeah. But it isn't the concern that a cyber attack a bleed over into a nato country and result in some trains off Rails or something, right? But still, the reaction would be in the cyber realm. Yeah, yeah, I don't think a cyber attack would really invoke provoke a military response. It at least not the kind of cyber attacks we've seen recently in any case. I do want to say that. I've always been pessimistic about sanctions to I. And I also often I agree that most of the time sanctions hurt the country that was doing the sanctioning more than it does the country being sanction. And I was skeptical that these sanctions that the US said they will be fierce and swift and I just kinda yeah. Right. We've all heard that before. And the initial ones weren't. I'm changing my view now because I see what's happening in Russia. These financial sanctions are creating chaos. They are creating chaos. There are runs on stores, there are runs on banks. The, the, the, the stock market in Moscow had been closed, has been shut down. And at least until March 5th. On the London market, the trading shares of countries such companies such as Gazprom and others, have dropped this day today, with the beginning of trading today have dropped anywhere from 4045 to 77% of their value. Now, that hurts. And the people around Putin who have the money and the power. I don't know how long they're going to put up with that already. They're beginning. There are cracks. There are some deputies and some wealthy oligarchs who had been saying, we need to stop the war. And they've been saying it publicly. So these sanctions, I think, and especially not just because they're being implemented by the United States, or just because their financial, I think because they involve such a huge number of countries that it really is isolating Russia and people there. Now we're talking about Russia becoming another North Korea. So I'm kinda changed, changing my mind about, about the sanctions that are being put in place now. But in general, I I agree with Stuart. Did sanctions generally don't work very well, but this may be a different situation. I think we're done. Here comes the boss. Come up quick and say, thank you to the panel and just the poly has any last comments who's been watching over us? Okay. Not have had that much of a chance to speak up. So I'm going to put you almost all the NUS just to, just to reminder not to confuse the Russian people with the Russian government. The Russian people are from accounts that I'm hearing. They feel shame what their government is doing. And if you've ever visited Russia, they are so embracing of the West and sell embracing of particularly of Americans. And so just to remind, remind ourselves of that. Thanks Paul II and thank you all for being here. Thank you to our panel. I want to let you know there is a light reception out in the lobby if you'd like to join us on your questions didn't get asked. Hopefully, the panelists in the room will be able to stick around a little bit longer to talk about that, I want to thank the University media services to the live streaming support on very little notice. And I'll thank also the College of Arts and Sciences communications team and the political science communications person, Margo MacDonald for just, again, doing this with no warning whatsoever. Keep an eye out for some additional panels and events that we hope to do over the next couple of weeks. And again, join us in the lobby. Thanks very much.
02.28.22: Mauled by the Bear: Understanding the War in Ukraine
From Coleen Popp March 11, 2022
1 plays
1
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.