Introduction and Contribution:

Wars have wide-ranging effects on the political attitudes and behaviors of citizens and elites. For example, European leaders were pressured to make democratic reforms and build large welfare states during World War II in order to stabilize their countries and encourage wartime sacrifice. After the 9/11 attacks and the initial Afghanistan invasion, George W. Bush’s approval ratings soared to 90%.

The Russo-Ukrainian War has been one of the defining wars of this century. Its consequences for the politics of both countries — such as Ukrainian national unity or the repression of Russian dissidents — are beginning to be understood. Yet it is less clear how the war has affected third-party states. In light of Russia’s imperial ambitions, as well as Ukraine’s need for international support to combat a regional hegemon, this is a pressing issue.

Leaders of third-party states have responded to the war in a range of ways, including imposing sanctions on Russia and mediating between the two countries. Wars also affect how rulers communicate with their citizens: they may be motivated to emphasize their shared connections with either warring party, their need for national self-reliance in a hostile international system, and so on.

In “Between wars and words,” Ana Paula Pellegrino, Benjamin R. Burnley, and Laia Balcells show that leaders of third-party states increased their nationalist rhetoric on X (formerly known as Twitter) after the invasion. The authors analyze over 10,000 tweets from the heads of 130 states both before and after the invasion, mapping these along a nationalist-cosmopolitan spectrum. The effects of Russia’s invasion on nationalist tweets were strongest among North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members and weaker among members of the pro-Russia Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

“Between wars and words” provides evidence that leaders react to wars in similar ways as do masses, whose sense of national identity tends to increase during periods of global uncertainty and conflict. As politicians increasingly use X to communicate, a more precise understanding of their tweets before and after major conflicts may help social scientists better understand their beliefs and threat perceptions. 

Methodology:

The authors collect tweets from the 14 days before and after the invasion using an unsupervised learning algorithm called GloVe. This process is diagrammed in Fig. 1 below. GloVe identifies relationships between words by analyzing how often they appear together, grouping together words with similar meanings. This enables the authors to code each tweet according to its topic and sentiment (e.g., positive vs. negative).
 

Image

To code the level of nationalism versus cosmopolitanism, the authors employ the Concept Mover’s Distance (CMD) approach. CMD measures how closely the words in each tweet align with sets of ‘anchor terms’ representing each concept, placing tweets along a continuum between the two. Briefly, nationalism refers to a set of beliefs about the reality and value of nations, the obligations that members of a nation have to one another, and the right of that nation to determine its political affairs, whether as its own state or within an existing state. By contrast, cosmopolitanism is the view that all humans, irrespective of their national memberships, ought to be seen as part of a single world (kosmos) community. Returning to CMD, nationalist tweets are those that align with anchor terms such as ‘pride, glory, patriot, forefathers, homeland,’ and ‘heritage.’ Cosmopolitan anchors include ‘cooperation, humanity, multilateral,’ and ‘universal.’ 

Importantly, nationalistic tweets need not bear an obvious relationship to (inter)national security — the authors hypothesize that Russia’s invasion merely increased nationalist rhetoric, not rhetoric of a specific kind. For example, 10 days after the invasion, Bolivian President Luis Alberto Arce Catacora tweeted, “In 2019, the glorious Alteño people once again showed us their courage and love for our country.” Conversely, 12 days prior to the invasion, Argentine President Alberto Fernández espoused several cosmopolitan sentiments when he tweeted: “With the logic of multilateralism, Argentina has discussed with Russia the possibility of deepening financial assistance and increasing bilateral investment and trade between the two countries.” 

Findings:

The authors show that Russia’s invasion did significantly increase nationalist rhetoric by third-party heads of state, whether or not one controls for topic and sentiment. As an example of this, consider Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer: Three days prior to the invasion, he tweeted, “Austria continues to rely on diplomacy and de-escalation to prevent war. The OSCE…is the appropriate framework.” On the day of the invasion, by contrast, Nehammer tweeted “I promise that I will do everything to protect the people who live in Austria.” Other international leaders, such as Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau, tweeted out more cosmopolitan statements about the importance of collectively pressuring Putin and respecting international law.
 

Image

Why might an international war prompt the leaders of third-party states to use more nationalist rhetoric? The authors provide a number of hypotheses. For one, wars lead to feelings of uncertainty, and nationalist rhetoric by elites can afford citizens a sense of safety. Third parties might also make nationalist statements to signal their support of (or opposition to) one of the belligerent parties; for example, “our proud nation will not stand idly by as Russia attacks Ukraine.”

Although the invasion increased nationalist discourse on average, these effects are driven primarily by the behavior of NATO members. This is likely because the alliance has historically taken a strong stand against Russian aggression. As mentioned above, CSTO members did not tweet in a more nationalistic way, nor did leaders of states with histories of territorial armed conflicts resembling the Russo-Ukrainian War.
 

Image

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

For Oleksii Movchan, a member of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament) and deputy chair of the parliamentary committee on economic development, his focus is on expanding financing tools for reconstruction. As part of a project he began during his 2025 SU-DD fellowship, he is drafting legislation to reform municipal bond regulations, aimed at increasing the participation of local governments in securities and debt markets and attracting additional resources for rebuilding Ukraine. To accomplish this work, he has relied on the Problem-Solving Framework he learned at Stanford, and shares that his experience in the SU-DD program made him more confident in his values and encouraged him to “stand on [his] principles and values of integrity, openness, and respect to human rights and democracy.” By strengthening municipal access to capital, his work seeks to support infrastructure recovery while reinforcing transparent financial governance.

Maria Golub, a senior political and policy advisor working on EU and NATO integration, is developing a national Coalition for Recovery — an inclusive, cross-sectoral platform designed to unify Ukraine’s defense, reconstruction, and reform agendas. With Ukraine balancing the demands of war and reconstruction, Golub’s 2025 SU-DD project aims to ensure that recovery planning connects security, governance, and innovation rather than treating them as separate tracks. Currently in a pilot, her proposals have already informed the government's 2026 recovery and resilience planning process.

At the regional level, Mykhailo Pavliuk, vice-chairman of the Chernivtsi Oblast (state) legislature in Ukraine, is actively implementing reforms to advance self-government and deepen Ukraine’s decentralization process. His work, initiated during his time at Stanford in 2023, focuses on strengthening “consolidated, self-sufficient communities” by developing political, financial, infrastructure, and social strategies that can be carried out locally, including cross-border regional initiatives in Chernivtsi. He said the most important element is “supporting the potential of people at the local level through the activities of advisory bodies, consultations, and modeling of joint decisions,” bringing citizens closer to decision-making on community affairs. Pavliuk emphasized that decentralization has been critical to Ukraine’s resilience since 2022, while noting that “there would certainly be a greater outcome in peacetime,” without the constraints imposed by war.

In the media sector, Alyona Nevmerzhytska, CEO of the independent outlet hromadske, is actively implementing her 2025 SU-DD project to strengthen the organization’s long-term sustainability and resilience. Her work, she says, “addresses two interconnected challenges: financial vulnerability and the rapid emergence of AI in the media landscape.” By developing diversified revenue strategies and integrating responsible AI tools into newsroom workflows, she aims to “improve efficiency, counter disinformation, and expand audience reach.” Despite ongoing security risks, she shares that the newsroom has maintained consistent production, adapted its operations, and prioritized staff safety, demonstrating what she described as “strong institutional resilience.” During her time on campus, Nevmerzhytska met with Stanford journalism and technology experts, whose guidance enhanced her strategic thinking around AI integration and digital modernization, “providing practical insights and [the] confidence to adopt responsible AI tools for efficiency and multilingual production.” She reports that hromadske continues to serve as a platform for accountability and public debate, reinforcing its role within Ukraine’s civil society.

Iaroslav Liubchenko, currently CEO of Ukraine’s national electronic public procurement system Prozorro, focused his 2023 Stanford project on strengthening transparency, efficiency, and institutional integrity in Ukraine’s defense procurement architecture. Today, that vision has become central to his leadership agenda. Prozorro is advancing three core priorities: deepening European integration through the approximation of EU public procurement directives into national legislation — in cooperation with Member of Parliament Oleksii Movchan — and sharing Prozorro’s digital governance model with EU partners; scaling up defense procurement within the system, including drones, unmanned and robotic systems, electronic warfare capabilities, non-lethal equipment for military infrastructure, and strengthened cooperation with the Defence Procurement Agency; and developing the broader Prozorro ecosystem through new coalitions and markets, advanced digital instruments, and AI integration. Prozorro seeks to ensure that Ukraine’s defense and rebuilding efforts are supported by transparent, technology-driven, and institutionally resilient procurement systems — not only fully aligned with EU standards, but capable of serving as a model for public procurement reform across Europe.

Ukraine’s Path Forward

Together, the fellows describe a future shaped not only by physical rebuilding but by the strength of Ukraine’s institutions and civic life. When asked about the country’s priorities for the next several years, their responses aligned in three areas: securing victory and sustaining defense capacity, advancing EU integration, and rebuilding critical infrastructure. Each emphasized that reconstruction must be paired with governance reforms to ensure public trust and long-term resilience.

Amid the political, economic, and human toll of war, our fellows agreed that the “unbreakable spirit and will of Ukrainians” gives them hope. “I am inspired by the endurance of Ukrainian society,” said Nevmerzhytska. “Despite exhaustion and loss, people continue to volunteer, innovate, and support each other. That civic resilience gives me confidence that Ukraine’s democratic spirit remains strong.”

As we look to the beginning of the fifth year of Russia’s war, Ukraine’s future is still uncertain. But the projects these leaders developed during their time at Stanford have carried into their work in parliament, regional government, civil society, media, and the defense sector. What began as ideas for reform are now being tested and adapted under wartime conditions, as they work to keep institutions functioning and prepare for the country’s long-term recovery.

To receive insights from our experts and guest speakers, sign up for APARC newsletters >

Following his keynote remarks, Khalil joined a panel discussion with William Dobson, the coeditor of the Journal of Democracy and a veteran in international reporting, and Elora Shehabuddin, a professor of gender and women's studies and the director of the Chowdhury Center for Bangladesh Studies at UC Berkeley. James Hamilton, Stanford University’s vice provost for undergraduate education, the Hearst Professor of Communication, and director of the Journalism Program, chaired the discussion. Both Dobson and Hamilton also serve on the judging committee for the Shorenstein Award.

The Shorenstein Award, which carries a cash prize of $10,000, recognizes outstanding journalists and news outlets whose work has deepened the understanding of Asia while advancing the values of a free press.
 

Bearing Witness 

Khalil opened his remarks by sharing a photograph of himself listening to a Bangladeshi woman whose son had been abducted by the Rapid Action Battalion, the country’s elite counterterrorism force that has been accused of serious human rights violations and abuse of power. For Khalil, the image encapsulates the animating question at the heart of Netra News: What does it truly mean to comfort the afflicted?

Investigative journalists, he argued, are first and foremost witnesses. Their work requires listening and documenting, for as long as it takes. He described an investigation that started with a phone call from a day laborer in Malaysia, who recounted his experience being abducted in Dhaka and held in a secret site by a plainclothed squad. Khalil kept calling back with questions, continuing the conversation over months. The source shared precise recollections that helped Netra News map a clandestine detention facility in the heart of the Bangladeshi capital. The investigation, "Secret Prisoners of Dhaka," published in 2023, shed light on hidden abuses and was shortlisted for the Global Shining Light Award for investigative journalism in developing countries. 

Khalil described other Netra News investigations that have sought to expose high-level crimes. “Body Count” combined data journalism and fieldwork to analyze more than a decade of alleged extrajudicial killings and acts of torture by Bangladeshi security forces. The patterns revealed which agencies were involved, geographic concentration, and spikes in killings during election cycles, all underscoring a systematic practice. For this work, the newsroom won a 2024 Sigma Award for Data Journalism.

Bearing witness, Khalil noted, means that public interest journalism must listen not only to the afflicted, but also to the perpetrators of horrible crimes. In another project, collaborating with German TV broadcaster Deutsche Welle, Netra News interviewed former Rapid Action Battalion commanders on camera about how extrajudicial killings were carried out. The investigation, "Inside the Death Squad," was the first to provide evidence of targeted killings and torture by the RAB, and was recognized with a 2024 Human Rights Press Award for documentary video.

Another joint investigation with DW exposed a pattern of deploying RAB members implicated in torture and killings to serve as United Nations peacekeepers. The revelations were cited by governments and lawmakers, and intensified scrutiny of peacekeeping vetting practices. 

“This is accountability journalism at its purest: reporting that not only informs, but also confronts power and demands justice, said Hamilton in his remarks before the award presentation.

Khalil situated this kind of reportage within a normative framework of journalism that defends democracy and human rights, for which he outlined four roles: monitorial (watching and warning), facilitative (bringing opposing segments of society together), radical (challenging institutions in the name of rights and freedoms), and collaborative (engaging with power when appropriate). First and foremost, this kind of journalism serves the public interest.

An Experiment in Exile

Those commitments guided Netra News from its inception. Khalii established the outlet in 2019 in Sweden, where he had lived in exile since 2008, seeking refuge following his detention and torture by the Bangladeshi military intelligence agency. As he set up the newsroom in exile with colleagues, he made a deliberate choice: rather than defending democratic norms from afar, they would “cover Bangladesh as if it were a democracy, like Sweden or the United States, and report accordingly.”

That meant reporting with no self-censorship or fear. Due to security risks to staff in-country, Netra News adopted the discipline of an intelligence operation, eschewing daily news coverage and opinions to concentrate instead on meticulously vetted investigations. With its reporters distributed across multiple countries and some working undercover in Bangladesh, the newsroom combined offshore editorial independence with on-the-ground reporting, publishing its investigations in both Bangla and English. This approach uniquely positioned the newsroom to cover the July 2024 uprising in Bangladesh with uncommon access.

Now, a year after mass protests toppled Sheikh Hasina’s authoritarian regime, and 18 years after he fled the country, Khalil has returned to open a Netra News bureau in Dhaka. Receiving the Shorenstein Journalism Award on behalf of the outlet at this moment, he said, is both recognition of its impact since its founding and a signal of support to the next generation of journalists carrying its mission forward.
 

Youth-Led Uprising in Context

During the discussion that followed Khalil’s keynote, the panelists considered the prospects for democracy in Bangladesh, the economics of investigative reporting, and the dynamics of youth-led protests in Asia.

Asked how the media landscape in Bangladesh had shifted since the 2024 uprising, Khalil said the media’s muscle memory remains one of censorship and fear. The challenge now is to “unlearn stenography,” that is, the practice of reporting only what those in power say, and build habits of dispassionate public interest journalism that scrutinizes both state and non-state power. That includes the interim government, corporate interests, and majoritarian religious forces.

Investigative journalism is a tough business to monetize and sustain. Khalil explained that Netra News is a nonprofit and that grant funding from the National Endowment for Democracy has made it possible. Long-term independence, however, will require earning monetary support from the people it serves. “The ultimate test is asking the public, ‘Will you pay for this?’”

Turning to Gen Z protest movements that have swept across South Asia, Dobson noted a wave of digitally savvy youth mobilizations pressing entrenched elites for substantive change. “People want real change, not shuffling the same roster of political players.” The youth-led uprisings that swept through Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and, more recently, Nepal, explained Dobson, had not originally set out to topple the established regimes, but to fight deepening inequality and economic disparities. The agendas changed, however, due to the lack of responsiveness from political institutions that have been hollowed out by patronage and corruption.

Shehabuddin underscored the central role women activists played in Bangladesh’s 2024 protests, leading from the front to help topple the authoritarian government, only to find themselves largely absent from decision-making led by the interim government.

The event concluded with questions from the audience about journalism in transitional contexts and under strain amid democratic backsliding. Newsrooms should aim to serve the entirety of society, said Khalil, alluding to the fragmented media landscape in the United States. As for standing up to anti-democratic power, he returned to first principles: the media’s charge is to bear witness, especially when those in power disapprove.

‘Keep the girls calm and quiet’

For almost 10 hours on October 7, Tibon and his wife and daughters listened to the sounds of gunfire and rockets outside, while monitoring Hamas atrocities on their phones and sending desperate SOS messages from their darkened safe room. 

Tibon said, “We had only one advantage, which is that we could hear them, we could hear their bullets, we could hear their shouting, and if we managed to keep the girls calm and quiet, they wouldn't hear us. And so that was our mission, to keep the girls calm and quiet.” 

They did, waiting until about 4:00 pm when the family was eventually freed by Tibon’s father, who drove with his mother from Tel Aviv to rescue the besieged family. Along the way, his parents made key decisions to rescue wounded Israelis by taking them to the hospital.

Learning later on about his parents’ dangerous foray into a war zone — and the aid they offered along the way — Tibon gained a deeper insight about saving those in grave peril. This informs his moral stance on prioritizing the rescue of the remaining 58 hostages — alive and dead — still held by Hamas in Gaza, over the competing priority of dismantling Hamas as a military and governing organization:

“When I look today at the dilemma of the state of Israel, whether to continue the war after 20 months or to stop in order to save those who need immediate saving, I don't see a dilemma. You save those who need immediate saving, and then you continue the mission,” said Tibon, focusing on the fates of the approximately 20 living Israeli hostages still held in Gaza.

When Diamond asked him about the word “betrayal” in the book’s subtitle, Tibon said the dual meaning of the term is a conscious one. The word “betrayal” reflects two concepts — the failure of the Israeli government, military, and intelligence services to heed early danger warnings about a Hamas attack, and the disappointment about their neighbors in Gaza, with whom they had for years worked with on peace and reconciliation issues. 

He recalled kibbutz members who volunteered to take cancer patients from Gaza in their cars to Israeli hospitals so they could receive optimal medical treatments.

“This was a peace-seeking community that, for many years, advocated for peace and reconciliation,” he said.

As for accountability, Tibon emphasized the need for Israel to launch an independent and professional investigation into the October 7 catastrophe through a State Commission of Inquiry. Such an inquiry would examine the causes of the strategic, intelligence, defensive, and operational breakdowns experienced by Israel before, during, and after the attack, and would establish who was responsible for the multiple failures. 

“This is the strongest tool in the Israeli system for investigating failures of the state. It's a commission established by the government, headed by a former judge, that has all the powers of a seated court to invite witnesses and investigate,” he added, noting that the current government has not yet approved such an endeavor, despite about 70-85 percent of Israelis supporting such a commission.

Tibon said, “The government is refusing to do it because they are afraid of what will come out.”

‘Shifted public opinion’

The October 7 Hamas terrorist attack marked a major, and rather peculiar, shift in domestic Israeli politics, Tibon said.

“It shifted public opinion on the conflict to the right because there is a lack of belief in the peace process after this kind of thing. And at the same time, it significantly weakened the current right-wing government, which in all the public opinion polls is losing a lot of support,” he said.

He explained that this trend reveals that Israelis currently do not believe in a peace process and that they perceive an existential need to defend their families and homeland. 

At the same time, Israelis want a serious and competent government, and the existing right-leaning government is not viewed as such.

“We have to be led and managed by competent, serious people, and this government is not considered competent or serious by most of the Israeli public for obvious reasons,” he said.
 

In his book, Tibon expresses deep empathy for the people who are suffering in Gaza, and he reflects on another subtitle, “hope.”

Hope can begin, he said, with saving the Israeli hostages and then ending the war. “Forever wars may be good for religious preachers, but they're not good for border communities. Border communities need to reach an end and go back and rebuild,” said Tibon.

He cited a Polish poet, who once wrote that after every war, somebody has to clean up. “We are the ones who are going to have to clean up and fix our own houses,” he said.

Tibon is an award-winning diplomatic correspondent for Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper. His story and book, The Gates of Gaza, was featured on 60 Minutes.

He, his wife, and daughters are currently living in temporary housing in north-central Israel.  

Diamond said, “This is a story of remarkable courage and tenacity from many quarters in the face of unspeakable terror and potentially paralyzing fear. It is quintessentially an Israeli story.”

A full recording of the conversation can be viewed here.

The 2025 Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture was presented by the Visiting Fellows in Israel Studies program in partnership with the Daniel Pearl Foundation, the Taube Center for Jewish Studies, and Hillel at Stanford.