Authors
Larry Diamond
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

As we gather here to celebrate freedom and to recommit ourselves to the democratic cause, we face a powerful authoritarian tide. The remarkable third wave of global democratization ran out of steam two decades ago. Since then, many countries have fallen under the spell of illiberal and even authoritarian populism. Anti-establishment parties have swept into power promising to elevate “the people” over corrupt ruling elites and decrepit institutions, only to betray them more deeply through corruption and abuse of power. These include not just emerging-market democracies like Venezuela and Turkey but wealthier democracies in Europe and the United States, whose stability as liberal democracies we took for granted. 

In this global trend away from freedom, authoritarian populists have implemented a common playbook to polarize politics, punish independent media and civil society, undermine judicial independence, purge neutral watchdog institutions, politicize the civil service and security apparatus, and weaponize the state to persecute critics and opponents.

Once this authoritarian project settles into power, truth decays, the rule of law crumbles, fear sets in, and submission becomes the norm. Moreover, authoritarian populists draw from one another — and from powerful autocracies like Russia and China — the narrative arguments, political techniques, resource flows, and technological tools to accelerate their bids for hegemony.
 


The longer these authoritarian parties are in power, the more they eviscerate democratic institutions. But they are not invincible or irreversible.
Larry Diamond
Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy, FSI


The longer these authoritarian parties are in power, the more they eviscerate democratic institutions. But they are not invincible or irreversible. Incipient authoritarianism has been turned back in countries as diverse as Brazil, Poland, Sri Lanka, and Senegal. The slide away from liberal democracy has been reversed recently in Botswana and Mauritius. An executive coup against democracy was defeated in South Korea. Young people in Bangladesh overthrew a dictator last year in a remarkable upsurge of protest. And the longstanding autocracies in Venezuela and Turkey are looking increasingly desperate and unpopular. These examples bear lessons we must learn and promote if we are to ignite — as we surely can — a new era of democratic progress.

First, we must study what it takes to defeat autocrats at the ballot box. Typically, electoral battles are not a straight contrast between democracy and autocracy. Voters weigh their circumstances of life as well. Fortunately, autocrats have other failings besides their corruption, lawlessness, and abuse of power: sooner or later, they fail to deliver on their material promises. Successful democratic campaigns target the populists’ hypocrisy and address not just people’s political rights but their economic and social needs. 

To defeat autocrats, democratic forces must offer specific, credible plans to meet the core policy challenges of economic growth and distribution, fairness and inclusion, education, health care, infrastructure, public safety, and national security. 

But people everywhere also need a vision of what constitutes a good and just form of government. Here, democracies have dropped the ball in making the case FOR democracy as the best form of government. Decades ago, as they fought dictatorships and then came to power, democracies taught their young people the values, ideas, and history of democracy. But as new democracies stabilized, the existence of a democratic culture came to be assumed, and countries forgot the terrible price they paid under dictatorship — the fear, falsehoods, powerlessness, and repression, the lack of accountability, voice, justice, and human dignity. We can make the practical case for democracy — it performs better over time. But we cannot pin the argument on performance, which may fail at specific points in time.
 


Ultimately, the case for democracy is that being able to speak truth to power, to hold it accountable, and to change those who exercise it is a core element of human dignity and a basic human right.
Larry Diamond
Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy, FSI


Ultimately, the case for democracy is that being able to speak truth to power, to hold it accountable, and to change those who exercise it is a core element of human dignity and a basic human right. The freedoms to speak, publish, pray, organize, and assemble are inalienable human rights. As are the rights to a fair and impartial trial and to have all citizens be treated equally under the law. It is only democracy — never autocracy — that protects these rights and treats citizens with dignity by investing sovereignty in them, not some self-appointed minority. Liberty and democracy are intertwined.

We must make these points relentlessly, creatively, and convincingly, not just in the schools, at successively higher levels of instruction and deliberation, but through the social media platforms where people live their information lives. Russia, China, Iran, and other autocracies wage extensive propaganda campaigns to trash liberal values and institutions. They portray democracy as lacking in dynamism, capacity, and masculine strength. These arguments are false, offensive, and degrading to the human spirit. But they will not fail of their own accord. They need to be defeated by better, more inspiring arguments and narratives about why people need freedom to thrive, and why societies need democracy to have freedom.

Today, there are four arenas of struggle for the future of freedom, and democrats must prevail in all of them. The core battle is now in the countries that have been sliding back from democracy to autocracy. 


In almost every instance where authoritarian projects have been defeated, it has been through elections. Illiberal populists crave the legitimacy that comes from victory in multiparty elections. But corruption and misrule erode their electoral support. So, they need elections that are competitive enough to validate their claim to rule but rigged enough to minimize the risk of defeat. The pathway to restoring democracy is to seize the electoral opportunity, flood the zone with election workers and observers, and wage an effective campaign so that people who have grown weary of authoritarian abuse can defeat it at the ballot box.

To win, democrats must forge a unified coalition across factional and ideological divides. They must offer concrete policy ideas to improve people’s lives. They need a narrative about what has happened to justice and democracy, and why restoring these will help to make the country great again. A campaign is not a legal brief. It must inspire and excite. It requires strong, compelling leadership. It must engage diverse sections of society, including people who once supported the authoritarian populists but are now disillusioned. Democrats must also express patriotism and show that illiberal populists wave a false flag. Democrats are the truer patriots because they recognize democracy and liberty as pillars of national greatness.

These lessons can help to restore democracy where it has been lost and to secure it in a second arena, when it is under challenge from authoritarian populist parties. But there are two other arenas of struggle in which we must prevail. Globally, democrats cannot let the world’s powerful authoritarian states capture and hollow out the global institutions to defend freedom — the UN Human Rights Council, the international and regional instruments of electoral observation and assistance, and the rules that govern the flows of data and information. Neither can we shrink from the global battle to support democratic values and free flows of information, and to lend technical and financial support to peoples, parties, media, and movements around the world struggling for freedom. 

In the face of isolationist efforts to defund and withdraw from this cause, we must convince democratic publics that we can only secure our own freedom by supporting that of others. A more democratic world will be a safer, fairer, less corrupt, more peaceful, and prosperous world.
 


There is no more urgent priority than to give the Ukrainian people the weapons, resources, and economic sanctions to defeat Russian aggression. Similarly, we must ensure that Taiwan’s democracy does not suffer the same aggression from the People’s Republic of China.
Larry Diamond
Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy, FSI


All of that has been under existential challenge in Ukraine since Russia’s brutal invasion in February of 2022. Resisting aggression is the fourth arena of struggle. There is no more urgent priority than to give the Ukrainian people the weapons, resources, and economic sanctions to defeat Russian aggression. Similarly, we must ensure that Taiwan’s democracy does not suffer the same aggression from the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan must have the weapons, trade, and international dignity it needs to survive. We must preserve the status quo across the strait by making clear that the US and other democracies stand behind the resolve of a free people to chart their own destiny in Taiwan — as we do in Ukraine.

We meet here today just a short distance from the grotesque wall that stood for decades as the dividing line between freedom and tyranny. 36 years ago — almost to this day — the wall was torn down. Few imagined it would happen when it did. But it did because of democratic conviction and resolve. Now, we are in a new cold war with global authoritarianism. The history of Berlin should constantly remind us that freedom is fragile, but it can also be resilient. We must never lose faith in the rightness of our cause and the obligation we bear once again to defend freedom in an hour of peril.

Professor Diamond delivered this speech at the Berlin Freedom Conference on November 10, 2025.

Read More

Sunset with overlaid American flag and Statue of Liberty
Q&As

Turbulent Times For Democracy

Hoover scholar Larry Diamond calls for respect, collaboration, and a crackdown on young people’s smartphones.
Turbulent Times For Democracy
Larry Diamond on World Class Podcast
Commentary

How Democracy Is Doing Around the World

On the World Class podcast, Larry Diamond and Michael McFaul compare how civic discourse and political institutions are holding up in the United States, South Korea, Taiwan, and other democracies.
How Democracy Is Doing Around the World
Larry Diamond and Francis Fukuyama speaking at a round table in front of a wall of books on a shelf.
Commentary

CDDRL Scholars Explore Impacts of Executive Orders and Policy Changes on Global Democracy

In a new video series, Francis Fukuyama and Larry Diamond discuss how democracy-promoting programs are being eroded under the new administration.
CDDRL Scholars Explore Impacts of Executive Orders and Policy Changes on Global Democracy
Hero Image
Larry Diamond delivered remarks to the Berlin Freedom Conference on November 10, 2025.
Larry Diamond delivered remarks to the Berlin Freedom Conference on November 10, 2025.
Courtesy of Democracy Without Borders
All News button
1
Subtitle

Professor Larry Diamond's remarks to the Berlin Freedom Conference, November 10, 2025.

Date Label
-
Mr. Nobody Against Putin film poster

Mr. Nobody Against Putin is a 2025 documentary film that premiered at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival, where it won the World Cinema Documentary Special Jury Award.

The film follows a rural Russian teacher who resists state propaganda in his school after the invasion of Ukraine. Filmed over two years by videographer Pavel “Pasha” Talankin at Karabash Primary School #1, it reveals how he secretly documented the growing pressure to promote patriotic education and his quiet defiance under an increasingly repressive system.

Co-sponsored by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) and the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies (CREEES).

Screening is open to the public. Seating is limited — please register in advance. The film is in Russian with English subtitles.

Encina Commons 123 (615 Crothers Way, Stanford)

Film Screenings
Date Label
Paragraphs

In the context of media consumption in Russia, being online usually means having more “liberal” views, opposed to those actively instilled by the government. One of the most popular news sources online have become the Telegram channels that provide the opportunity to read a plethora of different views on the same topic. The level of trust to the Telegram channels is above 30%, being even higher for the younger generation, which is unprecedented for any other independent source in modern Russia, apart from the state-owned TV.

However, as Sergey Guriev and Daniel Treisman have pointed out, mastery over media as the key point of modern authoritarian regimes. Therefore, since the start of the full-scale invasion in Ukraine in 2022, we have seen the rise of manifold propaganda channels on Telegram as an important part of ongoing fight for support in Russia and across the globe. They include many previously known speakers, but also a cohort of so-called war correspondents, who report and analyze the events on the front, providing first-hand information. They usually align with the pro-Russian narratives about the war, strengthening its propaganda network online. The methods they use to report on the war remain diverse and fluctuating. With the rising tension in the Russian society, we have begun to see criticism of the Russian government from “the other side,” the far-right ambassadors of the “Russian World.” They critique Putin from his right for not mobilizing further to win the war. The peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine that started in 2025 at the initiative of Donald Trump have produced many postings and speculations among our target group, illustrating previously made guesses about the field and giving us fruitful ground for analysis.

As for the second part of our research, the rise of Twitter as a central hub for political discourse and content dissemination makes it a critical platform for analyzing the spread of foreign propaganda in the digital age. A striking example of this is the 2024 indictment of Tenet Media, a U.S.-based conservative media company covertly funded by Russia’s state-owned RT.  Through a complex network of foreign shell entities and fabricated personas, RT funneled millions of dollars into Tenet Media to covertly shape American political discourse. Influential commentators with millions of followers across platforms—including Twitter—were recruited under false pretenses, with generous compensation and vague direction to create content on divisive U.S. issues. While these influencers denied knowledge of the Russian connection, the DOJ highlighted how the content served Russia’s strategic interests by amplifying domestic U.S. tensions and weakening opposition to its war in Ukraine.10 This case underscores Twitter’s relevance as a tool through which propaganda can be subtly seeded and amplified to mass audiences.

The strategic use of social media for information warfare is not accidental but rooted in longstanding Russian military doctrine. Russian military theorist Valery Gerasimov emphasized the importance of the “information space” as a battlefield, recognizing social media as both a threat and an opportunity for asymmetrical warfare. Since the Western response to Russia’s 2014 actions in Ukraine, the Kremlin has intensified its efforts to influence global audiences through online disinformation. The Tenet Media operation exemplifies the evolution of these strategies—moving from overt messaging by registered foreign agents to covert infiltration of domestic media outlets. Twitter’s role in this ecosystem is central, given its fast-paced, viral nature and its prominence among political commentators. As such, Twitter is not just a platform for public discourse but also a potent battleground where narratives are shaped, contested, and often manipulated by foreign actors.

Another dimension of our research lies in analyzing content in the context of different platforms. Different affordances from the nominatively-independent and privately owned platforms (with or without algorithms) foster varying styles of posting and formulating narratives. The government’s mastery of the online platforms that were previously seen as “liberating technologies” shrinks people’s access to free, uncensored and truthful information.

Our research therefore concentrates on collecting, understanding and analyzing these peace narratives, as well as the speakers producing them, in order to understand the heterogenous and fluctuating landscape of the Russian propaganda on Telegram. Additionally, we are aiming to compare these narratives to those produced by English-speaking influencers on X (former Twitter) of various political views to see how the pro-Russian political agenda manifests differently across borders and between sources.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Conference Memos
Publication Date
Authors
Paragraphs

This article explores the influence of the war in Ukraine on rural schools in Russia, particularly focusing on the Republic of Bashkortostan. This research analyzes social media content and official school documents to answer the following question: How has the ideological content in rural schools evolved since the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine?

The analysis reveals not just an intensification of existing patriotic messaging but a significant qualitative shift towards militarization and the centralization of ideological control. Applying the “power vertical” theory and frameworks of authoritarian education, I argue that the education system is being actively used to promote the state's war-centric narrative and “traditional values.” Understanding this transformation in rural schools helps illuminate the war's broader ideological effects within Russian society.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Conference Memos
Publication Date
Authors
Paragraphs

This paper investigates contemporary forms of Russian colonialism as manifested in three distinct regions: Ukraine’s Donbas, Georgia’s Abkhazia, and Russia’s Chechnya. Through a comparative case study approach, the analysis applies the concepts of internal colonization and selected elements of settler colonialism, drawing on postcolonial theory to explore practices such as identity erasure, militarization, and legal assimilation. The study argues that Russian imperial strategies have not disappeared but adapted into dynamic tools of governance—combining symbolic integration, coercive loyalty, and discursive control. By situating these developments within both Soviet legacies and post-Soviet transformations, the paper contributes to a growing body of literature that reconsiders Russia’s imperial role in the 21st century.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Conference Memos
Publication Date
Authors
Paragraphs

The Russo-Ukrainian War has exacerbated several of the country’s existing public health crises. Specifically, this paper identifies 3 areas of public health concern that are inflamed by the conflict in Ukraine that will likely have an outsized effect on the economic success and political legitimacy of the country in the coming years. These are, namely, alcohol
addiction, an aging population, and attrition from war. This publication explores the complex causes, the extent of their economic and political ramifications, and an evaluation of the future success of current attempts to address them.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Conference Memos
Publication Date
Authors
Authors
Melissa Morgan
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

On August 15, President Donald Trump welcomed Vladimir Putin to the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. It was the first time since their sideline meeting in 2019 at the G20 meeting in Osaka, Japan that the two leaders have met, and the first time Putin has traveled to the United States since the United Nations General Assembly in New York in 2015.

While President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine met with President Trump in Washington, DC the following  week, some observers have expressed trepidation over the prospect of a deal being made between Russia and the United States without the input of Ukraine.

Writing for Brookings ahead of the summit, Steven Pifer, an affiliate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and The Europe Center, and a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine warned:

“Putin will seek to trap Trump into endorsing a position that incorporates the major elements of long-standing Russian demands. If Trump agrees, he will suffer unflattering comparisons to Neville Chamberlain, who agreed to surrender a large part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany in 1938. While the Czechoslovakian government concluded it had no choice and accepted the territorial loss, the Ukrainians will say no. They will not embrace their own capitulation.”

So how did the meeting in Anchorage actually play out?

In commentary on social media, FSI Director and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul summarized the talks in the context of the Yalta Conference, an agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union made in the waning months of WWII that quickly fell apart when Joseph Stalin broke promises made to Western leaders to maintain and support democratic elections in Eastern Europe.

Speaking on NPR’s Morning Edition, McFaul elaborated on his concerns: 

“What I think the worst outcome would be is if President Trump starts negotiating on behalf of the Ukrainians without the Ukrainians in the room. Trump needs something tangible, and I hope that doesn't make him too anxious to start negotiating on behalf of the Ukrainians because that would be a disaster. If he jams President Zelenskyy with something he can't accept, that would be the worst of all outcomes.”

Pifer echoed his relief about the lack of discussion over particulars about Ukraine between the two leaders, but also pointed out that the broadest goal of the meeting also hadn’t been met.

“The good news is, President Trump didn’t give away the store. I was concerned he might get into bargaining on details about Ukraine without the Ukrainians there, which would be to their detriment. But it seems Mr. Trump failed in his stated goal to achieve a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine,” said Pifer. 

But even without a concrete policy outcome, Pifer says the Alaska meeting was an optical victory for Russia: 

“The significance for Vladimir Putin is that the meeting happened in the first place. Since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine back in 2022, there’s been a boycott by Western leaders of any kind of face-to-face meeting with Putin. And by hosting him in Alaska, Trump broke that boycott. That is being played up in Moscow as a huge victory that Putin has been legitimized again.”

On Monday, August 18, President Zelenskyy and a cadre of other European leaders met with President Trump at the White House to discuss the Friday meeting and reinforce Europe’s positions and redlines against capitulation to Russian demands.

In analysis for Foreign Policy, Pifer outlined the stakes of this follow-up meeting for the European delegation:

“Zelenskyy and his European colleagues face a tricky challenge. They have to diplomatically offer suggestions to walk Trump back from a position that he does not appear to understand would be bad for Ukraine, bad for Europe, and bad for American interests. And they have to do so without setting off an explosion that could disrupt U.S.-Ukrainian and U.S.-European relations.”

McFaul is also cautious about the tone and tack of the discussions moving forward:

“I think it’s a good thing [the Europeans and Trump] are talking about security guarantees,“ he told Alex Witt on MSNBC. “But the devil is in the details. We keep hearing something about ‘NATO-like security guarantees.’ Why not just NATO security guarantees?"

The argument for building a lasting ceasefire in Ukraine based on NATO membership is a proposal McFaul has long supported.

“This notion that these guarantees are going to be something like NATO but less than NATO . . . if I were the Ukrainians, that would make me nervous. They had guarantees like that in 1994 called the Budapest Memorandum, and it meant nothing. It didn’t stop Putin from invading in 2014, and it didn’t stop him from launching a full-scale war in 2022,” McFaul reminded viewers.

“To me,” he argues, “it has to be NATO, not NATO-lite. The only way to do real, credible security guarantees for Ukraine is membership in NATO.”

In assessing the White House meeting with President Zelenskyy and European leadership, Rose Gottemoeller, the William J. Perry lecturer at CISAC and former deputy secretary of NATO, is cautiously optimistic. 

“This was a major step along the road, and it was vital that the Europeans were there as well as Ukraine,” she told the CBC.

A seasoned negotiator with direct experience working on high-level diplomacy with Russia, Gottemoeller is no stranger to the long process of dealmaking with the Kremlin.

“There are many steps to get through. We are not there yet. As much as Trump would like to walk out of the Oval Office and say, ‘We got the deal done,’ I think there will be many more hoops to jump through before that is possible.”



Additional insights from our scholars on the Trump-Putin summit and White House meeting with Zelenskyy and other European leaders can be found at the following links:

Russia, Ukraine, and Trump on Katie Couric
Trump Meets with Putin: Experts React in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
There Are No Participation Trophies in High-Stakes Diplomacy on Substack

 

Stay Connected

Subscribe for email updates to stay up-to-date on commentary and analysis from FSI scholars.

Read More

2025 Strengthening Ukrainian Democracy and Development fellows
News

Ukrainian Leaders Advance Postwar Recovery Through Stanford Fellowship

Meet the four fellows participating in CDDRL’s Strengthening Democracy and Development Program and learn how they are forging solutions to help Ukraine rise stronger from the challenges of war.
Ukrainian Leaders Advance Postwar Recovery Through Stanford Fellowship
The Russian and American flags flying side by side
Commentary

Displaying Weakness to the Kremlin

For a U.S. administration claiming that it wants to restore American power in order, among other things, to negotiate from a position of strength, the past week has not advanced the cause.
Displaying Weakness to the Kremlin
James Goldgeier on the World Class podcast
Commentary

The Future of U.S.-Europe Security Partnerships

On the World Class podcast, James Goldgeier and Michael McFaul discuss how relations are evolving between the United States and Europe, and what that means for the future of Ukraine, defense strategy in Europe, and global security interests.
The Future of U.S.-Europe Security Partnerships
Hero Image
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in conversation on the tarmac of the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on August 15, 2025 in Anchorage, Alaska. Photo Credit: Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

FSI scholars Michael McFaul, Steven Pifer, and Rose Gottemoeller analyze the Alaska meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and its implications for Ukraine’s security and sovereignty.

Date Label
Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

In 2022, the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) launched its Strengthening Ukrainian Democracy and Development (SU-DD) Program — a 10-week training initiative for mid-career Ukrainian practitioners and policymakers. Designed for participants advancing well-defined projects aimed at strengthening Ukrainian democracy, enhancing human development, and promoting good governance, SU-DD builds on the successes of CDDRL’s earlier Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program, which brought 12 fellows to Stanford over four cohorts.

The third SU-DD cohort began their work in June, meeting online with CDDRL faculty to refine the scope of their projects, each focused on actionable strategies to support Ukraine’s recovery from Russia’s invasion. In their first session, fellows presented their proposals to a panel of distinguished CDDRL faculty, including Mosbacher Director Kathryn Stoner, FSI Director Michael McFaul, and Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow and MIP Director Francis Fukuyama, receiving initial feedback and guidance. The second meeting invited deeper exploration of solutions, using the MIP Problem-Solving Framework co-created by Professors Fukuyama and Jeremy Weinstein. In the final session, fellows were challenged to revisit and sharpen their project scope while learning from Professor Fukuyama about the Implementation phase of the framework. Equipped with new tools, fresh perspectives, and targeted feedback, the fellows concluded the virtual portion of the program ready to begin their journey at Stanford.

A hallmark of the SU-DD program is participation in CDDRL’s three-week Fisher Family Summer Fellows Program. Last month, the Ukrainian fellows joined peers from across the globe on campus at Stanford, building connections, exchanging ideas, and exploring shared solutions to complex development challenges. This experience broadened their networks far beyond Ukraine's borders, allowing them to build relationships they will draw on as they advance their projects after the program concludes on August 29.

During the final three weeks of the program, our Ukrainian fellows will visit Silicon Valley tech companies, meet with local business experts, politicians, and government officials, as well as Stanford faculty, and finalize implementation plans to bring their proposals to life.

Learn more about each fellow and their work below.

Meet the Fellows

Polina Aldoshyna

Polina Aldoshyna is a Ukrainian lawyer and civic leader with over nine years of experience in law, public administration, and nonprofit management. She currently leads the BGV Charity Fund, overseeing social projects that support vulnerable communities. In addition, she serves as a Deputy of the Zhytomyr Regional Council, focusing on local governance and social policy. Throughout her career, Polina has managed over 60 humanitarian projects, including the establishment of psychosocial support centers and aid programs for displaced individuals and veterans.

Project: Institutionalizing Resilience Centers for Postwar Recovery 

Polina is currently working on transforming Ukraine’s emerging resilience centers—grassroots hubs that provide psychosocial support, legal aid, and essential services to displaced and vulnerable populations—into a sustainable, institutionalized model of community-based social infrastructure. While these centers have played a critical role in the war’s social response, many still lack unified standards, stable funding, and digital infrastructure, limiting their long-term impact.

Her project explores which governance structures — municipal, civic, or hybrid — are most viable in Ukraine’s decentralized context, how public, private, and donor financing can be blended to support long-term operations, and how digital tools, such as CRM systems and reporting platforms, can professionalize service delivery. Drawing on global models, such as Resilience Hubs in the United States, Polina aims to co-design a scalable framework for resilience centers that can be integrated into Ukraine’s broader post-war recovery strategy.

To support this work, Polina is interested in meeting with NGOs, charitable foundations, and private philanthropists who support Ukraine in the reconstruction of human social capital in the United States. She hopes to learn how democratic institutions adapt and deliver services during crisis and post-conflict transitions, as well as engage with scholars and practitioners working at the intersection of governance, social development, and recovery.
 


 

Oleksii Movchan

Oleksii Movchan is a Member of the Ukrainian Parliament and Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Economic Development, representing the “Servant of the People” faction. He chairs the subcommittee on public procurements and state property management, and is active in inter-parliamentary groups with the USA, UK, Japan, and others. Before parliament, he led projects at Prozorro.Sale. Oleksii holds degrees from Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukrainian Catholic University, and Kyiv School of Economics. He has advanced key reforms in procurements, state-owned companies, and privatization to support Ukraine’s European Union integration.

Project: Improving Corporate Governance in Municipally-Owned Enterprises (MoEs) in Ukraine

Oleksii is currently working to improve the governance of Ukraine’s municipally owned enterprises (MoEs), which number nearly 14,000—more than triple the number of state-owned enterprises. While some MoEs serve as critical infrastructure providers in areas such as water, heating, and public transport, most operate without modern governance standards. Over 82% are unprofitable and many are subsidized, making them susceptible to inefficiency, mismanagement, and corruption. These shortcomings erode public trust, distort competition, and weaken essential service delivery.

His project focuses on designing and advocating for national legislation to institutionalize OECD-based governance practices across approximately 60 high-impact MoEs in 19 cities. Proposed measures include strategic property management policies, independent supervisory boards, transparent CEO selection, and robust audit, compliance, and risk management systems. The legislation also calls for standardized financial reporting and regular external audits to enhance transparency and creditworthiness.

To support this work, Oleksii is drawing on Ukraine’s pilot reforms in Mykolaiv and Lviv, as well as prior SOE governance reforms since 2015, and global best practices from EU and OECD countries. He is particularly interested in how institutional reform can advance anti-corruption goals and how reformers in other countries have successfully designed and implemented large-scale changes. He hopes to meet with Stanford faculty, civic technologists, and philanthropic organizations, such as the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, Code for America, and the Skoll Foundation, to explore how policy and technology innovations can support municipal reform and Ukraine’s post-war recovery.
 


 

Maria Golub

Maria Golub is a recognized expert on Ukraine’s European and Euro-Atlantic integration, with deep expertise in EU-Ukraine bilateral relations. Based in Brussels, she currently serves as a Senior Political and Policy Advisor to Ukrainian leadership, where she advocates for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine and supports the country’s advancement along the EU integration path through a decisive reform agenda. She is also actively involved in shaping Ukraine’s reconstruction strategy and is a strong proponent of the “build back better” principle, championing an ambitious revival plan for the country.

Project: Building a National Recovery Platform and Transatlantic Innovation Alliance

Maria is currently working to establish a national Coalition for Recovery—an inclusive, cross-sectoral platform designed to unify Ukraine’s defense, reconstruction, and reform agendas. As Ukraine faces the twin imperatives of resisting ongoing military aggression and laying the groundwork for long-term renewal, Maria’s project aims to ensure that recovery planning is not siloed but instead integrates priorities across security, governance, innovation, and transatlantic cooperation.

The Coalition will convene key domestic and international stakeholders to shape Ukraine’s internal reform agenda, embed EU and NATO-aligned governance standards, and streamline policy frameworks across recovery sectors. A core pillar of the project is embedding security priorities and military technological innovation directly into the recovery strategy, positioning defense modernization as a foundation — not a separate track — for rebuilding state capacity and competitiveness. In tandem, Maria is developing the concept for a large-scale technology and defense innovation alliance between Ukraine, the EU, and the United States. By fostering deeper collaboration in emerging technologies and military-industrial partnerships, the initiative seeks to contribute to Ukraine’s economic resurgence in 2025–2026 and anchor its strategic integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.

Maria is particularly interested in successful strategies and action plans that demonstrate how countries emerging from large-scale conflict can simultaneously pursue national recovery and build resilient, future-oriented security and defense architectures. She aims to explore cutting-edge developments in the tech and military tech sectors, as well as innovative tools like digital twin cities, to help design an integrated national revival plan. In addition, she hopes to deepen her understanding of how AI tools and techniques can support planning, coordination, and implementation across Ukraine’s postwar recovery landscape.
 


 

Alyona Nevmerzhytska

Alyona Nevmerzhytska is CEO of hromadske.ua, Ukraine’s leading independent online media platform. She began her career in 2012 at the Kyiv Post and has since focused on business development and organizational strategy. At hromadske, she has enhanced audience engagement and strengthened data-driven decision-making. Committed to building sustainable models for independent media, she ensures ethical newsroom operations and promotes democratic values. She is a graduate of the Stockholm School of Economics, an Atlantic Council Millennium Fellow, and a 2024 McCain Institute Global Leader.

Project: Strengthening Independent Media for Postwar Accountability and Recovery

Alyona is currently working to build a more resilient and innovative media ecosystem in Ukraine that can serve as both a watchdog and a unifying force during the country’s postwar recovery. As CEO of Hromadske.ua, she is leading efforts to combine investigative journalism, compelling storytelling, and technological advancement with a focus on financial sustainability and editorial independence.

Her project explores how independent media can most effectively cover Ukraine’s complex reconstruction process — holding public institutions and international aid mechanisms accountable while also building trust across communities fractured by war. Alyona is particularly interested in leveraging technology, including AI tools, to enhance investigative capacity, analyze data, and uncover patterns of corruption or inefficiency in recovery efforts.

Through the SU-DD fellowship, she also seeks to explore global models for sustainable journalism beyond donor-driven funding, learning how to strengthen independent media institutions to ensure their long-term viability and public impact. A key area of inquiry is the ethical integration of AI into journalism, ensuring that innovation does not compromise transparency, integrity, or audience trust. Alyona is eager to connect with Stanford faculty in communication and business, as well as experts, to explore sustainable models for independent journalism and civil society resilience. She is also interested in meeting with philanthropic organizations, alongside tech leaders, and Ukrainian NGOs to strengthen partnerships that support innovative, mission-driven media.

Read More

(Clockwise from left) Oleksandra Matviichuk, Oleksandra Ustinova, Oleksiy Honcharuk, and Serhiy Leshchenko joined FSI Director Michael McFaul to discuss Ukraine's future on the three-year anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion.
News

Through War and Loss, Ukrainians Hold Onto Hope

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.
Through War and Loss, Ukrainians Hold Onto Hope
Ukraine and Russia flags on map displaying Europe.
Commentary

The future of Russia and Ukraine

How the present conflict plays out has important implications for other former Soviet states and for the future of the E.U., says political scientist Kathryn Stoner.
The future of Russia and Ukraine
Oleksandra Matviichuk speaks to an audience at Stanford University on April 15, 2024.
News

Ukraine Needs Western Assistance, Global Implications if Conflict is Lost

Nobel Peace Prize winner and CDDRL alumna Oleksandra Matviichuk delivered the S.T. Lee Lecture on April 15 and spoke of the broader implications of Russia’s actions in Ukraine and for the world if the West does not continue to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Ukraine Needs Western Assistance, Global Implications if Conflict is Lost
Hero Image
2025 Strengthening Ukrainian Democracy and Development fellows
Alyona Nevmerzhytska, Oleksii Movchan, Maria Golub, and Polina Aldoshyna.
Rod Searcey
All News button
1
Subtitle

Meet the four fellows participating in CDDRL’s Strengthening Democracy and Development Program and learn how they are forging solutions to help Ukraine rise stronger from the challenges of war.

Date Label
Authors
Khushmita Dhabhai
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

As Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth year, the resilience of international support is being tested. Public opinion in neighboring countries — many of which have absorbed refugees and face direct geopolitical pressure — has become a critical variable in sustaining aid and solidarity. In a REDS seminar talk, co-hosted by CDDRL and The Europe Center, Princeton Professor of Politics Grigore Pop-Eleches shared findings from a major research project examining what drives support for Ukraine — and whether empathy can help counter growing war fatigue.

The study draws on two waves of public opinion surveys conducted in eight countries bordering Ukraine and/or Russia: Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan. Over 1,000 people were surveyed in each country, with a randomly assigned half receiving a brief empathy prompt. This prompt asked them to reflect on the daily challenges Ukrainians face living in a war zone. The goal was to measure whether simply imagining life in Ukraine could increase support for the Ukrainian cause.

The presentation began by outlining the stakes. Support for Ukraine has implications beyond aid flows. It affects how elites justify their positions, how international coalitions hold, and how misinformation, especially from Russia, can shift public discourse. The researchers focused on whether empathy-based interventions could increase not only emotional identification with Ukrainians, but also concrete actions such as signing petitions, donating money, or supporting humanitarian and military aid.

The results were striking. The empathy prompt had a clear and consistent effect: participants who received it expressed more sympathy for Ukrainians, more concern for their well-being, and greater willingness to support aid, both humanitarian and military. Statistical tests showed that these effects were driven by increased emotional connection (not concerns about the security of their own country), highlighting the central role of affective empathy.

Importantly, the effects were not uniform. They were strongest in countries like Hungary and Lithuania, and among individuals with strong attachments to their own national group and among those who had not previously interacted with Ukrainian refugees. Conversely, those who identified closer with Russians or who regularly consumed Russian media showed weaker or even no response. This suggests that perspective-taking can be powerful — but only in the absence of competing narratives.

The presentation concluded with a discussion of the broader implications. Empathy may offer a low-cost, scalable way to strengthen international solidarity — but its success depends on timing, exposure, and context. In countries with few refugees or limited media exposure to Ukraine, empathy interventions can fill an important emotional gap. However, where pro-Russian sentiment or misinformation dominates, their effects are muted.

At a moment when global support for Ukraine hangs in the balance, this research offers an encouraging insight: even brief moments of reflection can move people toward solidarity — if the conditions are right.

Read More

Brian Taylor
News

“No Peace in Sight:” Ideology, Territory, and the Stalemate in the Russo-Ukraine War

In a recent REDS Seminar, Syracuse University Professor of Political Science Brian Taylor examined the state of the war, the prospects for peace, and the political dynamics shaping both Ukrainian resistance and Russian aggression.
“No Peace in Sight:” Ideology, Territory, and the Stalemate in the Russo-Ukraine War
Juliet Johnson presented her research in a REDS Seminar, co-hosted by CDDRL and TEC, on February 27, 2025.
News

Show Me the Money: Central Bank Museums and Public Trust in Monetary Governance

Juliet Johnson, Professor of Political Science at McGill University, explores how central banks build public trust through museums.
Show Me the Money: Central Bank Museums and Public Trust in Monetary Governance
Yoshiko Herrera presented her research in a REDS Seminar co-hosted by CDDRL and TEC on January 16, 2025.
News

Identities and War: Lessons from Russia’s War on Ukraine

Political Science scholar Yoshiko Herrera examines how identity shapes the causes, conduct, and consequences of war, especially in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Identities and War: Lessons from Russia’s War on Ukraine
Hero Image
Grigore Pop-Eleches discussed his research in a REDS Seminar on May 1, 2025.
Grigore Pop-Eleches discussed his research in a REDS Seminar on May 1, 2025.
Soraya Johnson
All News button
1
Subtitle

In a REDS seminar talk, co-hosted by CDDRL and The Europe Center, Princeton Professor of Politics Grigore Pop-Eleches shared findings from a major research project examining what drives support for Ukraine — and whether empathy can help counter growing war fatigue.

Date Label
Authors
Khushmita Dhabhai
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

On April 17, 2025, Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), alongside The Europe Center and the Hoover Institution, hosted a seminar entitled “The Russo-Ukraine War: Peace for Our Time?” featuring Syracuse University Professor of Political Science Brian Taylor. The seminar examined the state of the war, the prospects for peace, and the political dynamics shaping both Ukrainian resistance and Russian aggression. Taylor emphasized that, despite mounting casualties and economic costs, peace remains unlikely in the foreseeable future due to the ideological rigidity and strategic goals of Vladimir Putin’s regime.

Putin’s own speeches, notably from February 2022 and June 2024, underscore his belief that Ukraine lacks legitimate statehood and is a ‘Western puppet.’ He accuses Kyiv of fostering “neanderthal nationalism” and allowing NATO to develop Ukraine as a military outpost. These views culminated in his June 2024 and April 2025 peace proposals, which demand complete Ukrainian military withdrawal from occupied regions, recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, demilitarization, and “denazification.” These demands remain wholly unacceptable to Ukraine, where President Zelensky has repeatedly asserted that ceding territory violates the constitution and would betray over a million Ukrainian citizens still living in unoccupied portions of the contested areas.

The seminar highlighted three core issues blocking peace: territorial integrity, security guarantees, and domestic political sovereignty. Ukraine insists on reclaiming all occupied land and seeks NATO membership or bilateral security commitments from Western powers. Meanwhile, Russia demands not only territorial concessions but also structural constraints on Ukraine’s military capabilities and internal laws. The Kremlin's calls for “denazification” include repealing post-2014 legislation on language and historical memory — proposals Ukraine sees as direct infringements on its sovereignty.

Territorially, the stakes are high. Ukraine holds parts of Kherson, Donetsk, and Zaporizhzhia, and is unwilling to legitimize Russian claims. International law supports Ukraine’s position: the UN Charter, Budapest Memorandum, and several treaties confirm Russia’s previous recognition of Ukrainian borders. The war, as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described, is the largest attempted annexation in Europe since World War II — a recolonization effort with severe implications for the international order.

On the battlefield, the war shows no signs of abating. Russian casualties exceeded 400,000 in 2024 alone, yet recruitment incentives and resource reserves remain robust. Some analysts argue that Putin is ideologically committed and politically insulated, making him indifferent to the war’s costs. Ceasefire discussions, while briefly floated in early 2025, have faltered amid escalating demands.

Taylor also explored the U.S. political context. President Donald Trump’s shifting rhetoric — from claiming he could end the war in 24 hours to hedging that he would “like to get it settled” — reflects uncertainty about future American policy. According to Russian sources, Putin believes he can manipulate Trump to secure favorable terms.

Ultimately, Taylor concluded that both sides see more advantage in fighting than in negotiating. The war is deeply rooted in Putin’s imperial ambition and ideological confrontation, not just geopolitics. Without dramatic shifts in leadership or battlefield fortunes, peace will remain elusive.

A full recording of Professor Taylor's seminar can be viewed below:

Read More

CDDRL Postdoctoral Fellow Ivetta Sergeeva presented her research in a CDDRL seminar on April 24, 2025.
News

How Transnational Repression Impacts Exiled Opposition

CDDRL Postdoctoral Fellow Ivetta Sergeeva’s research on the Russian diaspora’s willingness to donate to oppositional organizations demonstrates that the criminalization of groups can incentivize greater donor support among emigrants, contrary to the Putin regime’s intentions.
How Transnational Repression Impacts Exiled Opposition
Soledad Artiz Prillaman presented her research in a CDDRL seminar on April 10, 2025.
News

Does Electoral Affirmative Action Worsen Candidate Quality?

In the wake of widespread challenges to affirmative action policy, Stanford Political Scientist Soledad Artiz Prillaman’s research challenges the notion that electoral quotas for minority representation weaken candidate quality.
Does Electoral Affirmative Action Worsen Candidate Quality?
Francis Fukuyama presented his research in a CDDRL seminar on April 3, 2025.
News

Rethinking Bureaucracy: Delegation and State Capacity in the Modern Era

Francis Fukuyama traces how scholars and policymakers have grappled with the tension between empowering bureaucracies to act effectively and ensuring they remain accountable to political leaders.
Rethinking Bureaucracy: Delegation and State Capacity in the Modern Era
Hero Image
Brian Taylor
All News button
1
Subtitle

In a recent REDS Seminar, Syracuse University Professor of Political Science Brian Taylor examined the state of the war, the prospects for peace, and the political dynamics shaping both Ukrainian resistance and Russian aggression.

Date Label
Subscribe to Ukraine