Ukrainian Film Screening: Porcelain War
McMurtry Building, Oshman Hall
355 Roth Way, Stanford, CA 94305
Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law is housed in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
McMurtry Building, Oshman Hall
355 Roth Way, Stanford, CA 94305
Nearly every day for the last three years, Russian missiles, drones, and artillery fire have struck Ukraine, killing thousands of people and damaging power plants, schools, hospitals, and homes in what has become the largest conflict in Europe since World War II.
“You live in constant fear for your loved ones,” said Oleksandra Matviichuk, founder of the Center for Civil Liberties and a participant in a February 24 virtual panel discussion with Ukrainian leaders in Kyiv on the war’s impact on daily life, the global democratic order, and Ukraine’s path ahead. The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law hosted the event on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“It's very difficult to be in a large-scale war for three years. You live in total uncertainty,” Matviichuk said.
Kathryn Stoner, the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), introduced the panelists, and Michael McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, moderated the discussion.
On the frontlines, outnumbered Ukrainian troops have waged a stiff resistance, while a mass influx of Russian troops, with enormous loss of life, have made incremental but not decisive progress. Hundreds of thousands have died or been injured on both sides. Talks to end the war are underway between the Trump Administration and Russia, with Ukraine and European nations not currently invited to participate.
Matviichuk, who was a visiting scholar from 2017-2018 with the Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program at CDDRL, noted the conflict has actually been going on for 11 years, since 2014 when Russia invaded and occupied Crimea. Today, she said, there is no safe place in Ukraine where people can hide from Russian rockets. “Just two days ago, Russia sent 263 drones against Kyiv and other peaceful cities in Ukraine.”
Matviichuk described how Russia seeks to ban the Ukrainian language and culture, and how they take Ukrainian children to Russia to put them in Russian education camps. “They told them they are not Ukrainian children, but they are Russian children.”
If the West does not provide Ukraine with security guarantees in a peace plan, then “it means that we will cease to exist. There will be no more of our people,” Matviichuk said.
Oleksandra Ustinova, a member of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's Parliament, said, “If we talk about life in Ukraine now, it's complicated, especially during the last week after the Munich Security Conference,” where Vice President JD Vance delivered a speech that focused on internal politics in Europe.
“People do not understand how we thought the United States was our biggest partner,” she said.
At one point, Ustinova noted that she could not hear the conversation in her headphones because sirens were blaring as Russia had just launched an aerial attack on Kyiv.
She said that Russian President Putin and others who seek a Ukrainian election are trying to set a trap because Ukrainian law does not allow an election during martial law, which Ukraine has declared because of the Russian invasion. Plus, it would involve the demobilization of more than 400,000 troops.
“It would be very easy to fake elections, and that’s what the Russians would do,” Ustinova said. “It’s a trap. They're going to find where to put the money into their own candidate.”
Ustinova, who was also a visiting scholar with the Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program from 2018-2019, said, “We can see that this is a new reality, not only in the Ukrainian war, but in foreign relations, and hopefully the Europeans can unite. Because if they don't, it will be a disaster for everyone.”
Oleksiy Honcharuk, a former Ukrainian prime minister from 2019-2020 who was the Bernard and Susan Liautaud Visiting Fellow at FSI in 2021, said, “I think that we are still strong. My prediction is that in three or six months, Ukraine can double the damage to Russia on the battlefield from a technological perspective with drones.”
But time is very expensive now, he added, because every single day, every single hour, Ukrainians are paying with the lives of their best people and soldiers.
Honcharuk said Ukrainians are “shocked” about the position of the United States’ recent vote against a United Nations resolution condemning the Russian invasion as well as the Trump Administration’s position on talks with Russia.
“This is exactly the moment when all the people of goodwill should do everything possible to support Ukraine in this very complicated time,” said Honcharuk.
Regarding the UN vote, McFaul said, “I am shocked, I am appalled, I am embarrassed as an American to see those votes today. We are voting with the most horrific dictators in the world.”
Matviichuk said, “Putin started this war of aggression, not because he wanted to occupy just more Ukrainian land. Putin started this war of aggression because he wanted to occupy and destroy the whole of Ukraine and even go further. He wants to forcibly restore the Russian Empire — he dreams about his legacy, his logic is historical.”
This ultimately means that Ukraine needs real security guarantees, she said. “President Trump said he started the peace negotiation because he cares about people dying in this war. So, if President Trump cares about people dying in this war, he also has to care about people dying in Russian prisons.”
She explained that she’s spoken with hundreds of people who have survived brutal conditions in Russian captivity. And so, it’s surprising, Matviichuk said, to hear political statements from U.S. officials “about natural minerals and elections, about possible territorial concessions, but not about people.”
Serhiy Leshchenko, an advisor to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s Chief of Staff, spoke about the recent overtures by the Trump Administration to Russia.
“This is a new reality we are living in now. Frankly, my understanding is that Ukrainians are not very shocked with what's going on because we went through so many shocks within the last three years.”
Acknowledging the lack of an American flag at an allied event this week in Kyiv, Leshchenko said Ukrainians know perfectly well that perception is reality.
“It means that now we have an absolutely different perception. So, it’s obvious that there is no global security infrastructure anymore. It’s obvious that NATO is not an answer anymore,” said Leshchenko, an alumnus of the 2013 cohort of CDDRL’s Fisher Family Summer Fellows Program.
In her opening remarks, Stoner noted, “We’re here on what is actually a sad occasion, which is that Feb. 24 marks three years since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.”
She said, “Only about less than 1% of land has changed hands since December 2022, so Ukraine is not losing. Ukraine is at least defending what it has, and it remains in Kursk (Russia).”
McFaul said, “It’s in our national interest that we do not line up with Belarus and Russia and North Korea – that holds negative consequences for our future security and prosperity. I actually think our country cares about values.”
He added that the notion that all America cares about is mineral rights, business deals, and hotels in Gaza is not the America he knows.
McFaul told the panelists, “I've witnessed and observed what you’ve been doing for your country, and we are just extremely fortunate to be connected to all of you, whom I consider to be heroic individuals in the world.”
A full recording of the event can be viewed below, and additional commentary can be found from The Stanford Daily.
FSI scholars and civic and political Ukrainian leaders discussed the impact of the largest conflict in Europe since World War II, three years after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
On January 31, 2025, the Program on Arab Reform and Development (ARD) at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) hosted a webinar examining the future of Syria following the December 2024 collapse of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime. The event featured Bassam Haddad, a leading expert on Syria and Associate Professor at George Mason University. Haddad spoke in conversation with ARD Associate Director Hesham Sallam. The discussion focused on the factors that led to Assad’s fall, the role of international actors, and the uncertain prospects of Syria under its new leadership, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
Haddad emphasized that while many Syrians welcomed the end of Assad’s decades-long rule, the transition has raised serious concerns about the country’s future. Over time, Assad’s regime had become weakened by corruption, economic decline, and an inability to provide basic services. By late 2024, Syria’s military was fragmented, demoralized, and lacked external support. When HTS forces advanced into Aleppo, Homs, and Damascus, the Syrian Army largely dissolved without significant resistance.
A key factor in Assad’s downfall was the unexpected inaction of his traditional allies. Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah — longtime backers of the regime — did not intervene. Iran, facing domestic unrest and wary of escalating tensions with Israel and the U.S., chose to stay out. Hezbollah, weakened by clashes with Israel, lacked the resources to help. Russia, preoccupied elsewhere, had seemingly accepted Assad’s fate. The lack of resistance suggests that the transfer of power may have been prearranged rather than a purely military victory.
The most immediate turning point came when Israel launched airstrikes that destroyed over 80% of Syria’s remaining military infrastructure. Notably, neither HTS nor other international actors responded to these strikes, fueling speculation about behind-the-scenes agreements between Turkey, Qatar, and Western powers.
With Assad gone, Ahmad Al-Shara, the leader of HTS, was declared Syria’s new president. However, Haddad noted that this transition was neither democratic nor transparent. Al-Shara, who was previously affiliated with Jabhat Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch), has rebranded himself as a moderate leader, promising inclusion and reform. However, Haddad pointed to major contradictions between his words and actions. The Syrian Army and security services have been dissolved, leading to concerns over instability. Government positions have been filled by HTS loyalists, excluding secular and nationalist opposition. Additionally, the new military structure requires recruits to undergo Sharia law training, raising fears about the ideological direction of the new government.
Syria’s transition is also deeply shaped by regional and international power struggles. Haddad stressed that HTS could not have taken power without Turkey’s approval. Turkey, focused on containing Kurdish forces in northern Syria, has played a key role in shaping post-Assad politics. Meanwhile, the U.S. recently announced its military withdrawal from Syria, leaving Kurdish forces vulnerable to both HTS control and Turkish expansion. Qatar and other Gulf states are increasingly involved in shaping Syria’s economy and political trajectory.
Looking ahead, Haddad identified five critical challenges that will determine Syria’s future:
While Assad’s downfall marks a historic moment, Syria’s future remains uncertain and fragile. Many Syrians who once celebrated the regime’s collapse now fear that HTS’s dominance will not bring real change. The gap between promised reforms and actual governance policies has fueled skepticism.
In a conversation with ARD Associate Director Hesham Sallam, Bassam Haddad, a leading expert on Syria and Associate Professor at George Mason University, addressed the factors that led to Assad’s fall, the role of international actors, and the uncertain prospects of Syria under its new leadership.
February 24 marks the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Though Ukraine has won many battles, the war for Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent, democratic nation rages on at a very steep human cost.
To commemorate this important day for Ukraine and the world, the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law is honored to host a panel of high-profile Ukrainian leaders currently based in Kyiv for a discussion of the impact of the war on daily life, the global democratic order, and Ukraine's future.
The panel will be introduced by Kathryn Stoner, the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, and moderated by Michael McFaul, Director of FSI, the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in the Department of Political Science, and a former U.S. ambassador to Russia.
Lunch will be available for in-person attendees. For those unable to join us in person, a livestream of the panel will be available via Zoom.
Oleksiy Honcharuk served as the 17th prime minister of Ukraine from 2019-2020, during which time he introduced important policy initiatives in Ukraine including the institution of business privatization processes, efforts to combat black markets, and the launch of the Anti-Raider Office to respond to cases of illegal property seizures. Prior to serving as prime minister, Honcharuk was deputy head of the Presidential Office of Ukraine and was a member of the National Reforms Council under the president of Ukraine. In 2021, he was the Bernard and Susan Liautaud Visiting Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI).
Serhiy Leshchenko is formerly a journalist with Ukrainska Pravda and member of Ukrainian Parliament (2014-2019). He first rose to political prominence during Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan Revolution, and has continued to serve in government and civil society since. He is an advisor to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief-of-staff, working and living in the governmental bunkers during the start of Russia's invasion and siege on Kyiv in 2022. He is an alumnus of the 2013 cohort of the Draper Hills Summer Fellows program (now the Fisher Family Summer Fellows Program) at FSI’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University.
Oleksandra Matviichuk is a human rights advocate and founder of the Center for Civil Liberties, which was recognized as a co-recipient of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize. The mission of the Center for Civil Liberties is to protect human rights and establish democracy in Ukraine and the OSCE region. The organization develops legislative proposals, exercises public oversight over law enforcement agencies and judiciary, conducts educational activities for young people, and implements international solidarity programs. Matviichuk was a visiting scholar from 2017-2018 with the Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law.
Oleksandra Ustinova is a member of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament. Since the beginning of Russia's invasion in 2022, she has met repeatedly with lawmakers in the United States to advocate on behalf of Ukraine, including an address before the U.S. House of Representatives on February 28, 2022. Prior to her government service, Ustinova was the head of communications and anti-corruption in healthcare projects at the Anti-Corruption Action Center (ANTAC), one of the leading organizations on anti-corruption reform in Ukraine. She was a visiting scholar with the Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law from 2018-2019.
Virtual: Zoom
Members of the media interested in attending this event should contact fsi-communications@stanford.edu.
Lore has it that the late President Ronald Reagan loved telling “the one about the pony.” In his rendition of the story, the parents of twin brothers—one a diehard pessimist, the other an eternal optimist—consulted a psychologist who recommended a unique experiment. On the twins’ next birthday the pessimist was shown into a room packed with the most expensive gifts the parents could afford, while the optimist was invited into a room full of horse manure. An hour later, when the parents checked on the pessimist, he complained bitterly about some arcane detail in one of his expensive gifts. In contrast, when they cautiously opened the door to check in on the optimist, they found him digging joyfully through the manure. “Mom! Dad! This is incredible!” the optimist shouted with glee. “With all the shit piled up in this room, there’s got to be a pony!”
Read the full article in Persuasion.
Amichai Magen hunts for the pony in the Israel-Hamas ceasefire.
How should we think about wars in the Middle East? Past scholarship has made great strides in unpacking the region’s nuanced conflict dynamics, but the literature lacks a broader framework to examine how diverse factors interact with the international system and with each other. In a recent CDDRL Research Seminar, Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science at George Washington University and the Director of the Project on Middle East Political Science, applies a framework of “Warscape Theory” to better understand patterns of state failures, recurrent conflict, and authoritarian rule across the region.
Three observations motivate this project. First, Middle Eastern wars are intricately interconnected. Militias, religious divisions, and refugee crises harbor no regard for borders. Second, these conflicts are long and protracted; wars may simmer down, but they never go away. The potential recurrence of direct violence remains a constant fear and expectation. Third, Middle Eastern political science has remained fairly insular, largely sticking to within region comparisons. Lynch’s warscape intervention draws inspiration from a body of anthropological research on wars in Sub-Saharan Africa, which share many similarities with wars in the Middle East. They rarely have a clear starting or ending point, they are constantly shaped by external great power interventions, and they possess a self-perpetuating dynamic that makes conflict resolution incredibly difficult to achieve.
What qualifies a region as a “warscape?” First, warscapes have protracted conflicts with periods of remission and resurgence. Second, warscape conflicts are highly transnationalized and are not contained by borders in any meaningful sense. Third, violence tends to be highly variable, both temporally and spatially. Significant intra-state differences in violence render state-level observations unhelpful; one part of the country might live in full-fledged war while another remains oblivious to the violence. Fourth, the relative strengths of belligerents are less clear than they present. Combatants possess variable motivations for participating in armed conflict, choosing to pick up and drop arms situationally. Finally, almost as a marketing tactic, groups often distinguish themselves by engaging in extreme — and sometimes performative — brutality. Beheadings, immolations, and other acts of terror simultaneously scare enemies at home and attract support from Gulf sponsors.
Why care about this new lens for studying the Middle East? This warscape framework describes a complicated reality that existing terms like “civil war” struggle to capture. It analytically repositions the state from being the central actor to only one of multiple “competing political orders” while contextualizing micro-level ethnographic observations within a broader landscape of global arms flows and international power structures. Lynch hopes scholars may leverage this lens to investigate how conflict dynamics play out differently in warscape regions compared to non-warscape regions.
Lynch’s characterization of the Middle East as a “warscape” does not suggest that war in the Middle East is inevitable. Instead, putting an end to wars in the Middle East requires a systematic understanding of how actors and structures from the individual level to the transnational level interact with one another. Warscape theory, as Lynch proposes, may enable us to better capture the full range and complexity of these interconnected conflicts.
Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science at George Washington University and the Director of the Project on Middle East Political Science, applies a framework of “Warscape Theory” to better understand patterns of state failures, recurrent conflict, and authoritarian rule across the region.
Sheryl Sandberg, former Chief Operating Officer of Meta and founder of LeanIn.org — an NGO dedicated to empowering women and girls — told a Stanford audience that the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks and sexual violence against women drew her back to the spotlight with a message for the world:
“What is at stake is actually important for all of humanity,” she said at a Nov. 19 film screening of her documentary, Screams Before Silence. The event was hosted by the Visiting Fellows in Israel Studies program, housed at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, and Hillel at Stanford.
The film included eyewitness accounts from released hostages, survivors, and first responders. During the Hamas attacks on Israeli towns and at the Nova Music Festival, women and girls were raped, assaulted, mutilated, and killed. Released hostages have revealed that Israeli captives in Gaza have also been sexually assaulted.
Yet, as Sandberg noted, the atrocities have received little scrutiny or attention from human rights and feminist groups, international organizations, and others. Some denialists have even said Hamas’ sexual violence never took place or that it was invented by Israel itself — an echo of 9/11 denialism and antisemitic conspiracy theories. So, Sandberg undertook the challenge of creating a 60-minute documentary, which has now registered almost three million YouTube views while also being screened around the world.
Sandberg interviewed survivors and witnesses and survivors and traveled to the site of the Nova Music Festival, where 364, mostly young revelers, were murdered in the worst terrorist attack in the country’s history. She viewed hundreds of photos of dead bodies of women who displayed clear signs of sexual abuse and harm.
She noted that even war has rules of law and that what she discovered while making the film was often incomprehensible, tragic, and heartbreaking.
Rape should never be used as an act of war, she said, and silence is complicity. “We know we have to keep fighting and trying to make people see this.”
In his introduction of Sandberg, Amichai Magen, the inaugural Visiting Fellow in Israel Studies at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), explained the film’s title.
“There is the obvious meaning, capturing the silence of death after the acts of violence. But there is also the silence of the international community, the complete shock experienced by Jewish communities all around the world, that on Oct. 8, some people denied this ever happened … After the screams, we experienced a moral silence, a moral eclipse. And then there is the silence of the invisible wounds, the broken minds, the broken souls, the broken families,” Magen said.
After leaving Meta a few years ago, Sandberg said she was completely committed to being private and not public anymore. “I'd had it, and it was done.” And then, Oct. 7 took place, and subsequent reports about sexual violence seemed to be met with an eerie silence.
Why the silence? Sandberg offered that people are so politically polarized today that they want every fact to fit into their particular narrative. And for some, sexual violence may not fit into their narrative.
“What is happening is that politics — polarization and extreme politics — are blinding us to something that should be completely obvious. I shouldn't even have to say this. Rape is not resistance. Never. Under any circumstances. Rape is not resistance. It never has been, it never will be,” she said.
Anyone who has a mother, a sister, a daughter, a wife, or a friend should join together to unite against rape in war or elsewhere, she added.
“It threatens all of our values,” Sandberg said about Hamas’ massacres of Israelis.
In one interview that Sandberg conducted, she spoke with Ayelet Levy Sachar, the mother of 19-year-old Naama Levy, whose kidnapping that morning was filmed by Hamas. The horrific sight of her pajama bottoms, drenched in blood at the back, was a clear indicator that sexual brutality was carried out by Hamas.
After the film concluded, Sandberg joined Ayelet Gundar-Goshen, and Rabbi Idit Solomon for a conversation and question-and-answer session with the audience. Gundar-Goshen is a clinical psychologist who has personally treated Nova survivors. This quarter she is lecturer and artist-in-residence at Stanford’s Taube Center for Jewish Studies. Rabbi Idit Solomon is the interim associate director at Hillel at Stanford.
Sandberg expressed heartache over the current situation in Gaza and said she is a supporter of a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.
“War is a terrible thing. Terror is a terrible thing. Oct. 7 is a terrible thing. What happened after that is a terrible thing. None of this should happen. We have to believe in peace. We have to get to peace. But in order to have peace, you need two people who are willing to let the other side live in peace,” she said.
In the film, she spoke with Rami Davidson, who heroically saved over 100 lives at the Nova Music Festival.
“He's just a hero,” Sandberg said about her interview with Davidson near the spot of the Nova festival. They stood close to the trees where he recalled seeing naked and mutilated bodies tied to them on Oct. 7.
“And he starts crying. He said, ‘I could have saved them. He rescued over 100 people, mostly from the Nova … For 10 hours, he went in and out in his little car, rescuing people, risking his own life. And he was just crying about the ones he didn't get to.”
Sandberg urged the audience to embrace the point that such terror will never have a place in a civilized world.
“It may take time and it may take a lot of work by people like you and all the brave people who are here today. But we are going to persuade people that this is terror. We are going to get to a world where people don't tolerate this terror and recognize the threat to our values that this is,” she said.
The documentary was released for private and public use without any licensing fees. “We're trying to get everyone we can to see it,” she said. It can be viewed for free on YouTube.
Sandberg recalled a discussion with Denis Mukwege, a Congolese physician who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict. Mukwege said the most horrible aspect of sexual violence as a war tool is that it's incredibly effective and free.
“It doesn't just take real lives, but it destroys communities in many places around the world. When a woman is raped, in some cultures, she's then outcast from her society. It systematically destroys the fabric of communities. You have the single most effective tool of war, and it is available for free. You don't have to buy a bomb or a gun. That is so devastating because you realize what we're up against,” Sandberg said.
She concluded, “We will come through this. Not everyone will come through this. These people, some of these people will not. But we will come through this. And so, this event gives me hope.”
If you are someone you know has been affected by sexual violence, the following resources are available for support:
|
Sheryl Sandberg said that filming a documentary about the sexual brutality of Hamas’ attacks on Israelis on Oct. 7 was the most important work of her life and that she wants to turn the world’s attention to the inhumanity that took place.
Stanford scholars urged historical approaches to examine the impact of regional conflict in the Middle East and North Africa on authoritarian stability and dissent.
Russia’s war in Ukraine has been roundly condemned in the West. NATO members have continued to supply Ukraine with weaponry while the EU, US and their allies have ensured that the Russian economy remains under the most extensive and intensive set of sanctions in history. Yet many leaders of countries in the global south have been far more hesitant to condemn Russian actions. Some have merely abstained in United Nations resolutions criticizing Russia, while others have remained neutral. This paper will endeavor to explain why the global south has such a different perspective from the global north on Russia’s war in Ukraine. I argue that this is a result of America’s withdrawal from the global south over the last two decades and Russia’s reemergence in many parts of the Middle East, Sub Saharan Africa, Latin America and Asia.
In a CDDRL seminar series talk, Michael C. Kimmage, a professor of history at the Catholic University of America, discussed his recently published book, Collisions: The War in Ukraine and the Origins of the New Global Instability (Oxford University Press, 2024). The book argues that the war in Ukraine is not a singular conflict; it has three separate axes, making it a series of collisions, not a singular one.
The first axis of conflict is self-evident: Russia and Ukraine. The armies of these two countries are waging a war of attrition over ideas of nationhood.
The second axis, Kimmage explained, pertains to Russia and Europe. The European Union's 2009 Eastern Partnerships Program was meant to be a bureaucratic and procedural move. However, it effectively forced Ukrainian leadership to choose between Russia and Europe. In 2013, then-president Victor Yanukovych bowed to pressure from Moscow, choosing Russia and sparking the largest demonstrations since the Orange Revolution. This situated Europe as a key player in the conflict.
The third axis encompasses Russia and the US. While the US was not as involved in the conflict in 2013, by 2020, they were a key actor. Based on military spending and risks taken, the war in Ukraine appears to be an important agenda item for the Joe Biden administration. They see it as a precedent-setting conflict — both for European security architecture and the international order at large. It remains unclear how much the US general population still cares about the conflict, but interest remains high at the governmental level.
Russia, too, is invested in this axis. Their rhetoric suggests that there are two shell enemies and one real enemy in this war. Ukraine, they argue, is not a proper nation, and Europe is not a firepower to be taken seriously. The US, on the other hand, is presented in this vision as the mastermind behind these shell actors — that is, the enemy that matters.
The nuclear capabilities of these two nations supercharge this war, and having a transatlantic opponent globalizes it. What may be construed as regional or local conflict has firmly gone global.
These three points of tension do not have the same origin, carry the same internal dynamics, and will not resolve themselves in the same way — making the war as complicated as it is.
The book draws four conclusions, which Kimmage reflected on and evaluated. The first is that the break between Russia and the West is profound and will be long-lasting. Putin has strategically created as autonomous a Russia as possible, cutting it off from the West. The Russian elite and society have been made complicit in the war, a barrier to normalizing future relations with the West.
He also argues that Ukraine will make its way into Europe. Sentiment, Kimmage believes, suggests Ukraine has already joined, while the humanitarian suffering has expedited the process. Institutional ties are also strengthening with growing intelligence sharing between Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S., as well as bilateral security agreements with countries like the UK and France.
This war, Kimmage believes, has also cast a shadow over peaceful Europe. There is now a major war in Europe, and the European project cannot be divorced from this fact. Finally, US engagement marks a turning point, a shift into a more active role in European politics both militarily and diplomatically. This engagement, however, could change with shifts in priorities in Washington.
Michael C. Kimmage discussed his recently published book, "Collisions: The War in Ukraine and the Origins of the New Global Instability" (Oxford University Press, 2024), which argues that the war in Ukraine is not a singular conflict; it has three separate axes, making it a series of collisions.