Stanford University

The Provenance Problem: Research Methods and Ethics in the Age of WikiLeaks

-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Register in advance for this webinar: https://stanford.zoom.us/webinar/register/8416226562432/WN_WLYcdRa6T5Cs1MMdmM0Mug

 

About the Event: Is there a place for illegal or nonconsensual evidence in security studies research, such as leaked classified documents? What is at stake, and who bears the responsibility, for determining source legitimacy? Although massive unauthorized disclosures by WikiLeaks and its kindred may excite qualitative scholars with policy revelations, and quantitative researchers with big-data suitability, they are fraught with methodological and ethical dilemmas that the discipline has yet to resolve. I argue that the hazards from this research—from national security harms, to eroding human-subjects protections, to scholarly complicity with rogue actors—generally outweigh the benefits, and that exceptions and justifications need to be articulated much more explicitly and forcefully than is customary in existing work. This paper demonstrates that the use of apparently leaked documents has proliferated over the past decade, and appeared in every leading journal, without being explicitly disclosed and defended in research design and citation practices. The paper critiques incomplete and inconsistent guidance from leading political science and international relations journals and associations; considers how other disciplines from journalism to statistics to paleontology address the origins of their sources; and elaborates a set of normative and evidentiary criteria for researchers and readers to assess documentary source legitimacy and utility. Fundamentally, it contends that the scholarly community (researchers, peer reviewers, editors, thesis advisors, professional associations, and institutions) needs to practice deeper reflection on sources’ provenance, greater humility about whether to access leaked materials and what inferences to draw from them, and more transparency in citation and research strategies.

View Written Draft Paper

 

About the Speaker: Christopher Darnton is a CISAC affiliate and an associate professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School. He previously taught at Reed College and the Catholic University of America, and holds a Ph.D. in Politics from Princeton University. He is the author of Rivalry and Alliance Politics in Cold War Latin America (Johns Hopkins, 2014) and of journal articles on US foreign policy, Latin American security, and qualitative research methods. His International Security article, “Archives and Inference: Documentary Evidence in Case Study Research and the Debate over U.S. Entry into World War II,” won the 2019 APSA International History and Politics Section Outstanding Article Award. He is writing a book on the history of US security cooperation in Latin America, based on declassified military documents.

Virtual Seminar

Christopher Darnton Associate Professor of National Security Affairs Naval Postgraduate School
Seminars
Research Seminar Series

Empowering the World: Entrepreneurship and the Future of Foreign Policy

-

Please note: the start time for this event has been moved from 3:00 to 3:15pm.

Join FSI Director Michael McFaul in conversation with Richard Stengel, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. They will address the role of entrepreneurship in creating stable, prosperous societies around the world.

Richard Stengel Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Special Guest United States Department of State

Michael A. McFaul

Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

0
Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies, Department of Political Science
Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
mcfaul_headshot_2025.jpg PhD

Michael McFaul is the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in Political Science, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, all at Stanford University. He joined the Stanford faculty in 1995 and served as FSI Director from 2015 to 2025. He is also an international affairs analyst for MSNOW.

McFaul served for five years in the Obama administration, first as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council at the White House (2009-2012), and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014).

McFaul has authored ten books and edited several others, including, most recently, Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global Disorder, as well as From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia, (a New York Times bestseller) Advancing Democracy Abroad: Why We Should, How We Can; and Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin.

He is a recipient of numerous awards, including an honorary PhD from Montana State University; the Order for Merits to Lithuania from President Gitanas Nausea of Lithuania; Order of Merit of Third Degree from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and the Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching at Stanford University. In 2015, he was the Distinguished Mingde Faculty Fellow at the Stanford Center at Peking University.

McFaul was born and raised in Montana. He received his B.A. in International Relations and Slavic Languages and his M.A. in Soviet and East European Studies from Stanford University in 1986. As a Rhodes Scholar, he completed his D. Phil. in International Relations at Oxford University in 1991. 

International Working Group on Russian Sanctions

The International Working Group on Russian Sanctions aims to provide expertise and experience to governments and companies around the world by assisting with the formulation of sanctions proposals that will increase the cost to Russia of invading Ukraine, and support democratic Ukraine in the defense of its territorial integrity and national sovereignty.
Read more

Global Populisms

A new project examining the global surge in populist movements and what it means for established democratic rules and institutions.
Read More
CV
Hide publication sections
Off
Date Label
Moderator
Panel Discussions

Securitization and Public Opinion in U.S.-Russia Relations: A Comparison of Russia the United States

Paragraphs

This memo examines securitization within the public political discussion of both Russia and the United States. We have selected keywords pertaining to the country itself in general and to the country’s intelligence services in order to identify whether the overall sentiment towards the country is similar to the sentiment given to one of the most securitized topics. For the dataset, we selected recent content from the 10 most-cited political bloggers, with the platforms being Substack for the US and Telegram for Russia. Further on, we analyzed some of the relevant post texts qualitatively. Policy recommendations are provided based on the results. 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Conference Memos
Publication Date
Authors

The Cost of Putin’s Social Contract: The Evolution of Political Passivity into Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

Paragraphs

This paper examines the evolution of Vladimir Putin’s social contract and its transformation from a performance-based arrangement into an identity- and mobilization-based model that supports Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The paper brings together several dimensions of the social contract — economic performance, political passivity, elite interests, and ideological legitimacy — to demonstrate how they evolved alongside one another rather than independently. It argues that the origins of this arrangement can be traced to the crises of the 1990s, when economic collapse and political instability left many Russians looking for stability more than political participation. Against this backdrop, the Kremlin gradually built an informal understanding with society: the state would provide order, improving living standards and relative freedom in private life, while citizens would largely stay out of politics. As this model became established, tighter control over the media, increasingly managed elections, pressure on independent political actors, and the growing acceptance of political disengagement all helped reinforce it. As economic growth slowed and the regime’s performance-based legitimacy weakened, the contract adapted by increasingly relying on militarized identity, patriotic mobilization, and narratives of external threat. The annexation of Crimea and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine are interpreted as key moments in this transformation, enabling the regime to replace material incentives with identity-based legitimacy and the “rally-around-the-flag” effect. The article concludes that Putin’s social contract is not a static agreement but a flexible, state-imposed mechanism capable of adapting to changing political conditions. However, this flexibility also creates new vulnerabilities, as the regime becomes increasingly dependent on continuous ideological mobilization and public acceptance of militarized governance to sustain its legitimacy.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Conference Memos
Publication Date
Authors

Propaganda on Telegram: A comparative analysis of pro-Russian digital media stratification

Paragraphs

This memo examines how pro-war Russian-language Telegram channels framed the war in Ukraine and Western actors during peace negotiations over six months after the Anchorage summit of August 2025. Drawing on a corpus of over 500,000 posts from 117 channels, the study moves beyond treating pro-war Telegram as a single propagandistic bloc and instead examines how framing varies across distinct categories of channels. We find that the Telegram ecosystem is stratified along multiple dimensions that do not always align. The channels that produced the strongest political framing of Western actors were not the channels that reached the largest audiences, and different categories favored different rhetoric. Mass-audience news outlets frequently engaged in consistent delegitimization of the West, while independent commentators advanced moral and conspiratorial framing, and military bloggers often used enemy-based language. Across the corpus, the United States and President Trump emerged as central objects of attention, invoked more frequently than either Russian or Ukrainian leadership. The study adds an account of how pro-Western hostility is distributed across forms and categories of propagandistic Telegram messages. We argue that this internal structure has direct implications for how Western governments might contest the Russian information space.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Conference Memos
Publication Date
Authors

Divergent Approaches, Shared Goals? Comparing US and EU Sanctions Strategies Against Russia Across Energy, Finance, and Frozen Assets (2022-2025)

Paragraphs

This paper asks whether the United States and the European Union, despite divergent economic exposure and institutional design, can sustain a coherent sanctions strategy toward Russia, and how that divergence shapes the regime's effectiveness. It proceeds through a structured comparison across three policy domains — energy, finance, and immobilized sovereign assets — drawing on the literatures on economic statecraft, energy security, and financial-network theory, and on transaction-level, macroeconomic, and legal evidence from 2022 to early 2026. The analysis finds, first, that the United States' position as a net energy exporter enabled rapid embargoes, whereas the EU's import dependence produced a slower, phased decoupling. Second, US financial measures operated extraterritorially through dollar centrality and centralized OFAC enforcement, while the EU relied on regulatory jurisdiction over SWIFT but enforced through fragmented national authorities; a Gazprombank carve-out preserved the energy-export inflows that offset the intended balance-of-payments shock. Third, in the dispute over frozen assets, EU custodial institutions bear the legal and retaliatory exposure that the United States advocates from a position of relative insulation. The findings indicate that the regime's effectiveness is constrained less by the design of individual measures than by uneven enforcement and an asymmetric distribution of risk; absent institutionalized burden-sharing, its durability and credibility are likely to weaken.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Conference Memos
Publication Date
Authors

"Lyuba's Hope" Film Screening

-
Lyuba's Hope film poster

Lyuba’s Hope follows Lyubov Sobol, a Russian anti-war opposition politician and anti-corruption figure, who has endured repeated arrests, hunger strikes, aborted political campaigns, attempted poisoning, and exile in her pursuit of a democratic post-Putin Russia.

As head of Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation, Sobol advanced pathbreaking investigations, including that of “Putin’s cook,” Prigozhin. In 2026, she was among the fifteen Russian opposition figures admitted to the European Parliament PACE program.

Lyuba, who was a 2022 Visiting Scholar at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), will join us in person for the screening of Lyuba’s Hope, along with noted Russian-American director Marianna Yarovskaya and Paul Gregory, Hoover Research Fellow and producer. Discussion will be moderated by Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL and Satre Family Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Gregory and Yarovskaya’s previous film collaboration, Women of the Gulag, was shortlisted for an Academy Award in 2018.

This event is sponsored by the Hoover History Lab, in partnership with the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, and the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
 

Logos for Hoover History Lab, CREEES, and CDDRL

Hauck Auditorium, David and Joan Traitel Building of the Hoover Institution
435 Lasuen Mall, Stanford (map)

Film running time: 80 mins. Discussion to follow.

Questions? Please contact rsvp-weisfeld@stanford.edu

Lyubov Sobol
Film Screenings
Date Label

Transnational Repression, Discrimination, and Well-Being Among Russian Emigrants

Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Introduction and Contribution:


Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has significantly undermined European security and Ukraine’s sovereignty, claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and arguably solidified Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian grip on power. Aside from these more obvious consequences, around one million Russians have emigrated, changing the domestic politics of dozens of countries across Europe, Asia, and North America. 

Russian emigrants not only face discrimination, integration difficulties, and economic precarity in their host countries, but also the threat of “transnational repression.” This includes Russia seizing their property or revoking their citizenship, harassing their relatives who stayed behind, and surveilling them in their host countries. There have even been reports of activists and journalists being poisoned outside of Russia. What does transnational repression mean for the lives of ordinary Russian migrants?

In “Invisible costs of exiting autocracy,” Ivetta Sergeeva and Emil Kamalov show that these varied challenges and threats — especially fear of Russian repression and host country discrimination — have had a considerable impact on emigrants’ subjective well-being. Using original survey and interview data collected as part of the ambitious OutRush project, the authors draw our attention to the many psychological hardships faced by Russians abroad simply because they are citizens of a belligerent authoritarian state.

The authors draw our attention to the many psychological hardships faced by Russians abroad simply because they are citizens of a belligerent authoritarian state.

Data and Variables:


Surveys and interviews were conducted between August and September 2022 with over 2,500 emigrants. “Invisible Costs” focuses on Russians living across more than 60 countries, with interviews conducted in five popular destinations: Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Serbia.

Sergeeva and Kamalov draw on a standard conception of subjective well-being as having ‘affective’ and ‘cognitive’ components. Affective well-being is operationalized in terms of how often survey respondents have felt sadness, depression, and happiness over the last three months, and cognitive well-being in terms of levels of life satisfaction. Migrant experiences ought to affect these two components differently; for example, the threat of transnational repression may significantly reduce happiness while leaving life satisfaction unchanged. As prior research has shown the importance of economic and social variables for migrant integration, the authors also include measures of income, employment, and interaction with locals. 

Results:


The survey data paint a fairly bleak picture of the emigrant experience. Over 60% of respondents reported being somewhat or very afraid of transnational repression, while only 9% expressed no such fear. Interviewees often linked these fears to at least two factors: (1) concern for the well-being of relatives still in Russia and (2) awareness of the presence of Russian agents in host countries. The statistical analysis shows that fear of transnational repression had a statistically significant (negative) correlation with affective well-being. However, it is not a significant predictor of cognitive well-being, which makes sense, as the high risks of repression in Russia make emigration seem like a rational life choice. 

Meanwhile, 22% reported experiencing discrimination. This is much higher than the OECD-wide average of 15% for migrants — the highest single-country percentage in these surveys is just 21%. In Poland and Georgia — both having a history of violent conflict with Russia — 36% and 39% of emigrants reported experiencing discrimination, respectively. For example, one interviewee reported walking into a Georgian coffee shop, scanning a QR code, and then pictures with captions saying “you’re terrorists, go away” popping up on their phone instead of the menu. Self-reported discrimination is shown to have a statistically significant effect on both types of well-being.
 

 

Figure 3. Effect of discrimination, experienced and feared, on subjective well-being.

 

Figure 3. Effect of discrimination, experienced and feared, on subjective well-being. The index of affective well-being represents an affective component of subjective well-being, while satisfaction with one’s life represents the cognitive component. Variables are presented in their original scales without standardization. Models with original scales are presented in online appendix D.
 


41% of respondents merely feared discrimination. This fear appears driven less by migrants’ negative experiences in their host countries and more by the risk of discrimination leading to deportation. Interviewees seem to assess this risk with reference to the high number of visa rejections they observe. Not only does fear of discrimination have a large and statistically significant effect on well-being, but its effects on affective well-being in particular are nearly twice as large as those of unemployment.

Consistent with prior research, spending time with locals has a statistically significant (positive) effect on well-being, with these effect sizes being nearly as large as those of discrimination, suggesting that social intimacy can help offset its negative effects. And indeed, several interviewees attested to this. One described an encounter with Georgians who said, “If there are any conflicts [related to discrimination]…please call me, because we understand that this is wrong and such things should not happen.”

Finally, 49% of respondents reported feeling high levels of guilt over Russia’s aggression, while 59% felt some level of responsibility. These factors are both statistically significant predictors of affective, but not cognitive, well-being. The authors explain this in terms of migrants adapting to living with emotions such as guilt; their migration choices are still seen as justified in spite of the negative psychological costs. For instance, one interviewee said, “gradually, life somehow clawed its way back…and now it has entered into some strange routine of suspension and timelessness.”
 

 

Figure 4. Effect of feelings of collective guilt and responsibility on subjective well-being.

 

Figure 4. Effect of feelings of collective guilt and responsibility on subjective well-being. The index of affective well-being represents an affective component of subjective well-being, while satisfaction with one’s life represents the cognitive component. Variables are presented in their original scales without standardization. Models with original scales are presented in online appendix D.
 


These distressing findings have implications for the priorities of host country governments. For one, even economically successful migrants still need legal protections against discrimination and physical insecurity in order to thrive. Second, because fear is itself sufficient to undermine well-being, host countries must (a) take measures to deter transnational repression and (b) make migrants aware that these measures are in place, so as to decrease their fears.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

Hero Image
Russian passport on a gray stone background
Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

CDDRL Research-in-Brief [3.5-minute read]

Date Label
Display Hero Image Wide (1320px)
No

New Partnership Brings Journal of Democracy to Stanford's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law

Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

As questions about democratic governance, institutional resilience, and authoritarian power become increasingly central to public life around the world, the need for rigorous, accessible scholarship has grown more urgent. Effective May 15, 2026, a new partnership between Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) and the Journal of Democracy will expand Stanford’s role in those conversations. Through the partnership, CDDRL will support the production of the Journal’s quarterly print issues and expanding digital content, while creating new opportunities for faculty, researchers, and students to contribute to its work. 

Since 1990, the Journal of Democracy has served as a major forum for scholars, policymakers, democratic reformers, and public intellectuals examining how democracy emerges, endures, and comes under strain. Widely regarded as the leading global publication on democratic theory and practice, the Journal has played a central role in shaping debates on democracy worldwide. Previously, the Journal was housed within the National Endowment for Democracy — a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world. The Journal was co-founded by Larry Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at CDDRL within the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), who served as founding co-editor for the Journal's first 32 years. 

A natural alignment with CDDRL’s work


The partnership is a natural fit for CDDRL, which brings scholarship and practice together to examine the forces that advance or impede representative governance, human development, and the rule of law. It also builds on long-standing connections between the center and the Journal of Democracy: many CDDRL-affiliated faculty have contributed to the Journal over the years, and its focus closely aligns with the center’s research, teaching, and practitioner training programs. Moreover, CDDRL is already deeply engaged in the kinds of questions the Journal has long brought to wide audiences — whether through the Fisher Family Summer Fellows Program, which brings civil society leaders from developing and transitioning countries to Stanford for intensive training in democratic practice and reform, the Democracy Action Lab’s work on democratic resilience, or the Leadership Academy for Development’s training for leaders advancing good governance and economic development.  

More broadly, the partnership reflects CDDRL’s research and teaching agenda, which focuses on the institutions, ideas, and political forces shaping democratic resilience, authoritarianism, and governance around the world. Across its faculty, fellows, students, and training programs, the center takes an interdisciplinary approach to some of the most pressing questions in global politics — from democratic backsliding and state capacity to political reform and accountability. The Journal of Democracy offers a complementary platform where that work can reach both academic and public audiences.

Connecting research to practice


For Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL and the Satre Family Senior Fellow at FSI, the partnership highlights how CDDRL’s work connects research to the practical challenges facing democracy.

“One of CDDRL’s core strengths is the ability to take high-quality research theories and methods and apply them to on-the-ground policy challenges,” Stoner said. “The Journal of Democracy serves a similar function in the field of political development. Our new partnership to produce the Journal enhances our global reach in both the international development policy and academic communities.”

CDDRL's new partnership to produce the Journal of Democracy enhances our global reach in both the international development policy and academic communities.
Kathryn Stoner
Mosbacher Director, CDDRL, and Satre Family Senior Fellow, FSI

At the institute level, the partnership also reinforces Stanford’s broader role in advancing research and engagement on democracy.

“As the threats to democratic governance around the world multiply, so too must our commitment to the rigorous, interdisciplinary scholarship that seeks to understand and address them,” said Colin Kahl, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. “Bringing the esteemed Journal of Democracy to CDDRL creates a powerful nexus for this vital work, strengthening FSI's role as a global leader in the study of democracy."

At the same time, the partnership comes at a moment of heightened global pressure on democratic institutions, underscoring the importance of the Journal’s role in the field.

“We are now in the twentieth consecutive year of global democratic decline — no longer just a ‘democratic recession,’ but a broader wave of authoritarian reversals,” said Larry Diamond. “Yet the struggle for democracy continues. Now more than ever, we need to understand both the causes of democratic decay and the conditions for recovery and renewal. The Journal of Democracy is unique in combining rigorous scholarship with timely, accessible analysis of developments around the world.”

For Stanford students, the partnership creates a more direct pathway into the world of ideas, publishing, and public scholarship. Through new editorial internships, undergraduates and recent graduate alumni can gain hands-on experience working with a leading journal that bridges scholarship and practice.

It also strengthens Stanford’s intellectual presence in democracy studies by giving CDDRL-affiliated faculty a more formal role in supporting the Journal’s work through serving on its editorial board. Stanford faculty will contribute to the Journal’s editorial mission, inspire new lines of inquiry, and help to identify emerging areas of research to be explored in its pages.

“This partnership with CDDRL is exceptionally exciting for the Journal of Democracy and its readers,” shared Will Dobson, the Journal’s co-editor. “CDDRL is not only the leading research center in the field, but its long history of collaboration with the Journal makes this a natural fit. We are thrilled to be working with CDDRL and with the possibilities this partnership will unlock.”

CDDRL is not only the leading research center in the field, but its long history of collaboration with the Journal makes this a natural fit.
William J. Dobson
Co-editor, Journal of Democracy

With a wide readership and growing digital footprint, the Journal of Democracy reaches audiences across academia, government, journalism, and civil society. It publishes roughly 100 online-exclusive essays each year alongside its quarterly print issues and engages readers through newsletters with more than 20,000 subscribers, across social media, in Apple News, and on leading podcasts. As the most-read journal in the Johns Hopkins University Press portfolio of more than 750 publications, it has become a central venue for ideas about democratic governance and political change worldwide. Through its partnership with CDDRL, the Journal is positioned to expand that reach even further — drawing on Stanford’s research community and global practitioner networks to bring new voices and perspectives into the conversation.

Hero Image
Spread of issues of the Journal of Democracy on black background
All News button
1
Subtitle

The partnership will open opportunities for Stanford faculty and students at one of the world's leading forums for democratic thought and practice, and further position CDDRL as a global leader among research centers in the field.

Date Label
In Brief
  • Beginning May 2026, CDDRL will support the production of the Journal of Democracy’s quarterly print issues and expanding digital content.
  • The partnership gives Stanford faculty a formal role in shaping the Journal’s editorial direction and offers students hands-on experience in the publishing process.
  • The collaboration links CDDRL’s research and training with a leading global publication, shaping how ideas about democracy are developed and debated worldwide.
Display Hero Image Wide (1320px)
Yes

Chokepoints: How Economic Warfare is Changing the World

-
Edward Fishman Event

Drawing on his New York Times–bestselling book, Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare, and his cover essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, “How to Fight an Economic War,” Edward Fishman will discuss how globalization gave rise to an age of economic warfare. As governments increasingly weaponize finance, technology, energy, and supply chains, the world is in the midst of what Fishman calls an "economic arms race” and a "scramble for economic security." From sanctions on Russia and Iran to the U.S.-China struggle over semiconductors and rare earths to the shock waves caused by the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, the session will examine how economic warfare is reshaping global power and the international order.

speakers

EddieFishman

Edward Fishman

Senior Fellow and Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomics, Council on Foreign Relations
Link to bio

Edward Fishman is Senior Fellow and Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomics at the Council on Foreign Relations and Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He is the New York Times–bestselling author of Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare. Previously, Fishman served at the U.S. State Department as a member of the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff and as Russia and Europe Sanctions Lead, at the Pentagon as an advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and at the U.S. Treasury Department as special assistant to the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Kathryn Stoner

Kathryn Stoner

Mosbacher Director, Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law
Link to bio

Kathryn Stoner is the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), and the Satre Family Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). From 2017 to 2021, she served as FSI's Deputy Director. She is Professor of Political Science (by courtesy) at Stanford and teaches in the Department of Political Science, the Program on International Relations, and the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy Program. She is also a Senior Fellow (by courtesy) at the Hoover Institution.

Kathryn Stoner
Kathryn Stoner

William J. Perry Conference Room, 2nd Floor, Encina Hall

Registration required.

Edward Fishman Senior Fellow and Director Presenter Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomics, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
Lectures
News Feed Image
EdwardFishmanEvent_0.png
Date Label
Subscribe to Russia and Eurasia