Below is a transcript of remarks by Miku Yamada, MIP '23, at the diploma ceremony for Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy graduates on June 18, 2023.
 

At Stanford, this MIP cohort quickly became my family. We became a family, not only because we had classes together every single day for the first quarter, but because despite all of our differences, we shared a collective desire to make the world, with all of its imperfections and inequalities, a better place for all to live in. 

When I think back to the first quarter, most of my memories are being in the MIP studio, or one of the study rooms in the dorms, either trying to flip probability trees, or struggling to understand how to calculate the Balance of Payments. But these are now fond memories, because through all these grueling work sessions, I developed a support system that carried me throughout my Stanford experience. 

While I learned a great deal from the classes I took, I learned equally as much, if not more, from my classmates. At the Friday discussions hosted by Taimur, we exchanged opinions on a broad range of topics, from cryptocurrency to critical race theory, encouraging each other to look at these issues from multiple lenses. We challenged the assumptions we had each internalized, and together, we boldly envisioned what we could do once we stepped out of our comfort zones. It was these discussions that inspired me to take classes I would not have considered otherwise, on topics ranging from energy to tech platform policy. 

We mastered our specializations and delved into new interests. Some of us, like Tanvi and Daniel, started out focusing on issues in development and governance, but fell in love with the exciting intersection of technology and policy. Angela immersed herself in the innovation ecosystem at Stanford as the first non-STEM Threshold Venture Fellow. Munashe and Dulguun took the opportunity to study at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna to further broaden their perspective on policy issues. Omar and Corinna pursued their passions in space policy and food systems, unearthing amazing opportunities.

Not only were these two years a time of learning, many of us dedicated our time to creating social impact. Arden’s work on helping resettle high-risk Afghan refugees, and Francesca’s work with the Stanford’s Jail and Prison Education Project are two prime examples of this. Shiro was awarded the Stanford Impact Founder Fellowship to build human capital for climate-adaptive farms in sub-Saharan Africa. The 20+ units of cyber policy electives were not enough for Caroline and Ilari, and so they devoted their time out of class to tackle online safety challenges at the Stanford Internet Observatory.

Throughout our journey, we experienced many joyous moments, which we celebrated together. We welcomed Brian’s beautiful daughter Lena. Joyce hosted us to celebrate the Lunar New Year, as we welcomed the year of the tiger, and then the year of the rabbit. I will never forget listening to Jasdeep read us his beautiful poem, and the harmonies of Caroline, Corinna, and Ben among the flickering flames at campfire night. We cheered on as Rosie performed in the Law School musical two years in a row, even as an expecting mom. We travelled around the world to conduct fieldwork for our capstone projects. I had the pleasure of witnessing Jonathan and Omar fall in love with the food in Tokyo and Hanoi, and especially the wonder that is Japanese 7-11s. We also celebrated the 40th anniversary of the IPS/ MIP program, together with our inspiring alumni.

However, these past two years have not always been easy. As much as grad school is an immensely rewarding time, it is also a challenging time. It is challenging because we are constantly tackling questions to which there are no answers to. It is challenging because it is a time of uncertainty, and it is difficult to measure how much we have grown. Throughout these two years, many of us have suffered personal losses, and wished we were closer to home. As policy students, it is especially devastating to see the ideals we strive for being destroyed by anger, fear, and greed. We watched in horror and disbelief as Russia invaded Ukraine, and many innocent civilians lost their lives. We saw Covid-19 continuing its rampage, impacting communities and people dear to us. 

Even so, we made it through. We supported each other through the lows. Here I was constantly surrounded by friends who gave me more kindness and love than I could ever return. I was struck so many times at how beautiful and powerful it is when we choose to be selfless, and choose to empower others. 

Now it is time for us to each embark on our separate journeys. Some of us, Chubing, Joyce, Suman, Anna and Luis will further expand their interdisciplinary learning at Stanford. Others, like Jonathan and Ben, will start their careers applying their policy skills in consulting. Yet others, including myself, will work in government to develop policies from the public sector.

We will continue to face challenges. As we learned from the Problem-Solving Framework, making changes is not an easy task, and it is not something we can do on our own. It takes time and hard work- but now we are equipped with the tools we need and a community of caring and inspiring friends all around the world. 

The most important lesson I have learned through Stanford, is to truly care about the problems we aim to solve, and to approach them with love. Sometimes it seems easier not to care, when caring too much about things that never seem to get better breaks your heart. Sometimes it is difficult to love, because it is too painful to watch the people and the things we love being hurt. Still, I hope we have the strength to always choose empathy and love. When we believe in a cause, and when we love a community, we can make an impact, deeper and larger than we could even imagine. Knowing each and every one of you, I am confident that we are ready to go out and tackle even the most difficult obstacles, with hope, compassion, and love. 

I want to end by sharing one of my favorite Japanese phrases: 「一期一会」(ichigo ichie). It roughly translates into “one chance in a lifetime”, and means that we should treasure each encounter and each moment in our life, because no moment is repeatable. Let us cherish all the encounters we make in our life. Let us never take a moment or an opportunity for granted. I especially hope that you will all remember this very moment as a time of joy and gratitude.

Now, please join me in congratulating the graduates of the MIP Class of 2023!

Kahl’s research focuses on the resurgence of geopolitical competition, American grand strategy, and the international security implications of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Prior to joining the Freeman Spogli Institute, Kahl was Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President. In that position, he served as a senior advisor to President Obama and Vice President Biden on all matters related to U.S. foreign policy and national security affairs, and represented the Office of the Vice President as a standing member of the National Security Council Deputies’ Committee. 

Kahl is the co-author of Aftershocks: Pandemic Politics and the End of the Old International Order (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2021) and States, Scarcity, and Civil Strife in the Developing World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), and he has published widely on international security and U.S. foreign and defense policy, including in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Middle East Policy, the National Interest, the New Republic, the New York Times, Politico, War on the Rocks, and the Washington Post, among others. 

At CISAC, he will return his focus to research and teaching CISAC undergraduate courses and graduate courses in FSI's Master's in International Policy program.

 “The world is more complex and dangerous than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and the scholars and students at FSI have much to contribute to addressing this rapidly evolving security environment,” said Professor Kahl. “I’m thrilled to return to FSI to contribute to this vital work.”

Impacts on Russia, Ukraine, and Beyond

Michael McFaul

The implications of the 72-hour mutiny will last much longer and extend much further beyond Rostov and Moscow, says FSI Director and former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.

Speaking with Madeline Brand of KRCW, McFaul outlined the difficult situation Putin now finds himself in.

“This whole series of events has made Putin look a lot weaker than he looked three or four days ago. The very fact that the Wagner group exists is a sign of weakness. Putin needs them because he couldn’t rely on his armed forces.”

Elaborating further on Putin’s dilemma, McFaul says:

“As those mercenaries were getting closer to Moscow, Putin went on TV and sounded very macho, calling Prigozhin’s men traitors and promising to crush them, but then four hours later, he capitulates and starts to negotiate. And now he’s given another speech where it sounds like he’s pleading with these mercenaries to lay down their weapons and join the Russian forces. That clearly shows he hasn’t resolved this Wagner crisis yet.”

McFaul predicts that Putin’s remaining partners are also taking note of his fumbled reaction to the rebellion.

“​​If you’re Xi Jinping watching this, the big bet you made on Putin as a partner in opposing the West is looking really problematic right now.”

What Chinese officials fear most, McFaul explained to MSNBC’s Jonathn Capehart, is instability and dissolution, both internally and amongst their neighbors. Historically, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a catastrophic event for Chinese Communist Party officials, and a lesson the current leadership is loath to repeat.

McFaul asserts that, “The longer Putin’s war in Ukraine goes, the more probable it becomes that Russia becomes more unstable. The longer this war goes on, the more likely it is we could see something like this play out over and over again. So I would hope that Xi Jinping understands that putting pressure on Putin to end the war in Ukraine is the best way to prevent chaos on China's borders.”

There are also important lessons the United States and its allies need to consider when evaluating the kind of support they are willing to give Ukraine as the war wears on.

“Putin capitulated very fast, and I think that says a lot about how he’s going to fight in Ukraine and whether he needs an ‘off ramp’ like we’ve been saying. We’ve heard all of these arguments that if he’s backed into a corner he’ll never negotiate. Well, this weekend Putin was in a corner, and he didn't double down. He didn't escalate. He negotiated,” McFaul observes.

Continuing this thought on his Substack, McFaul emphasized that, “The lesson for the war in Ukraine is clear. Putin is more likely to negotiate and end his war if he is losing on the battlefield, not when there is a stalemate. Those who have argued that Ukraine must not attack Crimea for fear of triggering escalation must now reevaluate that hypothesis. The sooner Putin fears he is losing the war, the faster he will negotiate.”

Or, as McFaul writes in Journal on Democracy, “Anything that weakens Putin is good for Ukraine. It is as simple as that.”  

Fallout on Nuclear Security and Norms

Rose Gottemoeller

Throughout the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there have been concerns about nuclear sabre rattling by Putin and Kremlin-backed propagandists. Writing in the Financial Times, Rose Gottemoeller, the Steven C. Házy Lecturer at CISAC and former Deputy Secretary of NATO offered this insight:

“The fixation with nuclear apocalypse seems to be the symptom of a wider anxiety that the west is bent on Russian dismemberment because of its aspirations in Ukraine. The Kremlin argues that it only wanted to resume its ancestral right to a Slavic heartland, but that the U.S. and NATO are seeking as punishment Russia’s full and complete destruction as a nation state.”

Gottemoeller has been quick to condemn Putin’s casual threats of nuclear use and clear in her recommendations to the U.S. administration and its allies to find constructive ways to keep nuclear arms talks open despite the war in Ukraine and setbacks like Russia’s suspension of its participation in the New START Treaty.

The Wagner takeover of Rostov-on-Don adds a new layer to the security concerns surrounding Russia’s nuclear posture. Looking at the evolution of Putin’s nuclear rhetoric over the last 18 months, Gottemoeller writes:

“Putin embraced nuclear weapons to keep the United States and its NATO allies off his back and out of his way as he pursued his adventure in Ukraine. It did not work out that way. The United States and NATO were not ready to fight inside Ukraine, but they were willing to do everything else to support Kyiv’s cause — economic, political, security and military assistance to ensure Russia’s defeat. Nuclear weapons failed Putin as a guarantee against external meddling.”

Turning to the events of the last week, Gottemoeller continues:

“We learned on June 24 that they are no help to him internally, either. He could not brandish nuclear weapons in the face of the Wagner Group uprising . . . Nuclear weapons are not the authoritarian’s silver bullet when his power is strained to the breaking point — far from it. In fact, they represent a consummate threat to national and global security if they should fall into the wrong hands in the course of domestic unrest.”

In light of Prigozhin’s mutiny, she urges global leaders to “focus on the problem, stop loose nuclear talk, and put new measures in place to protect, control and account for nuclear weapons and the fissile material that go into them.” 

The Unknown Unknowns of the Settlement

Steven Pifer

Major questions remain about the deal struck between Putin, Prigozhin, and Lukashenko. While Lukashenko has confirmed that the Wagner boss is now in Belarusian territory, it is unclear — and many feel, unlikely — that he will stay there in quiet retirement. 

Weighing in on Twitter, Steven Pifer, an affiliate at the Center for International Cooperation and Security and The Europe Center, and a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, acknowledged, “We likely do not know all carrots and/or sticks that were in play to lead to Prigozhin’s decision to end his mutiny . . . Something does not add up.”

Following up in Politico, Pifer added:

“The ‘settlement’ supposedly brokered by President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus leaves Putin, who was invisible during the day except for a short morning TV broadcast, as damaged goods. It provided the impression that all was forgiven, likely because the Russian president feared the prospect of Prigozhin’s troops parading in Moscow — even if they lacked the numbers to take control of the capital. It is harder to understand Prigozhin. His demands went unmet, yet he ordered his troops back to garrison, accepted that they might join the Russian army that he detests, and meekly set off for Belarus. There clearly is more behind this ‘settlement’ than we understand.”