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

As the global order becomes increasingly multipolar, Russia is not only reacting to Western sanctions but also advancing a distinct vision of global governance. This study investigates the ideological, political, and economic narratives Russia uses to shape an 'alternative world order' in the Global South and examines how these narratives contribute to its strategic ambitions amidst rising geopolitical tensions. Through systematic analysis of diplomatic statements, media content, and bilateral relationships across three regional case studies — Africa, India, and Latin America — this research reveals that Russia's Global South engagement, while ideologically coherent on the surface, suffers from significant structural contradictions that undermine its strategic effectiveness.

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
-
Democracy Day Panel

As part of Stanford Democracy Day, several Stanford scholars share their perspectives on domestic and comparative erosion of democracy, providing context for current elections in the United States and around the world.


Speakers:

Christophe Crombez, Senior Research Scholar at The Europe Center at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Professor of Political Economy at the Faculty of Economics and Business at KU Leuven in Belgium. His research focuses on EU institutions and their impact on policies, EU institutional reform, lobbying, party politics, and parliamentary government.

Anna Grzymała-Busse, Professor in the Department of Political Science, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the director of The Europe Center. Her research interests include political parties, state development and transformation, informal political institutions, religion and politics, and post-communist politics.

Hakeem Jefferson, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, faculty affiliate with the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity and the Stanford Center for American Democracy. His research focuses primarily on the role identity plays in structuring political attitudes and behaviors in the U.S., with a special interest in understanding how stigma shapes the politics of Black Americans, particularly as it relates to group members’ support for racialized punitive social policies. 

Hesham Sallam, Senior Research Scholar at CDDRL, where he serves as Associate Director for Research. He is also Associate Director of the Program on Arab Reform and Development. Sallam is co-editor of Jadaliyya ezine and a former program specialist at the U.S. Institute of Peace. His research focuses on political and social development in the Arab World. Sallam’s research has previously received the support of the Social Science Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Peace.

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

Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA  94305

 

(650) 723-4270
0
Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies
Professor of Political Science
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
anna_gb_4_2022.jpg

Anna Grzymała-Busse is a professor in the Department of Political Science, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the director of The Europe Center. Her research interests include political parties, state development and transformation, informal political institutions, religion and politics, and post-communist politics.

In her first book, Redeeming the Communist Past, she examined the paradox of the communist successor parties in East Central Europe: incompetent as authoritarian rulers of the communist party-state, several then succeeded as democratic competitors after the collapse of these communist regimes in 1989.

Rebuilding Leviathan, her second book project, investigated the role of political parties and party competition in the reconstruction of the post-communist state. Unless checked by a robust competition, democratic governing parties simultaneously rebuilt the state and ensured their own survival by building in enormous discretion into new state institutions.

Anna's third book, Nations Under God, examines why some churches have been able to wield enormous policy influence. Others have failed to do so, even in very religious countries. Where religious and national identities have historically fused, churches gained great moral authority, and subsequently covert and direct access to state institutions. It was this institutional access, rather than either partisan coalitions or electoral mobilization, that allowed some churches to become so powerful.

Anna's most recent book, Sacred Foundations: The Religious and Medieval Roots of the European State argues that the medieval church was a fundamental force in European state formation.

Other areas of interest include informal institutions, the impact of European Union membership on politics in newer member countries, and the role of temporality and causal mechanisms in social science explanations.

Director of The Europe Center

Encina Hall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

(650) 723-0249 (650) 723-0089
0
Senior Research Scholar at The Europe Center
cc3.jpg PhD

Christophe Crombez is a political economist who specializes in European Union (EU) politics and business-government relations in Europe. His research focuses on EU institutions and their impact on policies, EU institutional reform, lobbying, party politics, and parliamentary government.

Crombez is Senior Research Scholar at The Europe Center at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University (since 1999). He teaches Introduction to European Studies and The Future of the EU in Stanford’s International Relations Program, and is responsible for the Minor in European Studies and the Undergraduate Internship Program in Europe.

Furthermore, Crombez is Professor of Political Economy at the Faculty of Economics and Business at KU Leuven in Belgium (since 1994). His teaching responsibilities in Leuven include Political Business Strategy and Applied Game Theory. He is Vice-Chair for Research at the Department for Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation.

Crombez has also held visiting positions at the following universities and research institutes: the Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane, in Florence, Italy, in Spring 2008; the Department of Political Science at the University of Florence, Italy, in Spring 2004; the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan, in Winter 2003; the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, Illinois, in Spring 1998; the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in Summer 1998; the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, in Spring 1997; the University of Antwerp, Belgium, in Spring 1996; and Leti University in St. Petersburg, Russia, in Fall 1995.

Crombez obtained a B.A. in Applied Economics, Finance, from KU Leuven in 1989, and a Ph.D. in Business, Political Economics, from Stanford University in 1994.

Christophe Crombez, Anna Grzymała-Busse, Hakeem Jefferson, Hesham Sallam, Kathryn Stoner
Seminars
Date Label
-

This event is expected to be at full capacity. Seating is available on a first-come basis.

Join us for a book talk and signing with Professor Michael McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, New York Times bestselling author, and former U.S. ambassador to Russia. 

Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global Disorder is a clear-eyed look at how the rise of autocratic China and Russia are compelling some to think that we have entered a new Cold War—and why we must reject that thinking in order to prevail. 

Cover of Autocrats vs Democrats Book

Amid the constant party divisions in Washington, DC, one issue generates stunning consensus—China—with Republicans and Democrats alike battling over which party can take the most hawkish stance toward the ascendant superpower. Indeed, far from trying to avoid a new Cold War with China, many have embraced it, finding comfort in the familiar construct, almost willing it into existence. And yet, even as politicians and intellectuals race to embrace this Cold War 2.0, many of the perils we face today are distinctly different from those of the Cold War with the Soviets. The alliance between the autocracies of China and Russia, the nature of the ideological struggle, China’s economic might, the rise of the far right in the United States and in Europe, and the growing isolationism and polarization in American society—taken together these represent new challenges for the democratic world. Some elements of the Cold War have reappeared today, but many features of the current great power competition have no analogy from the past century.

For decades Michael McFaul, former ambassador to Russia and international affairs analyst for NBC News, has been one of the preeminent thinkers about American foreign policy. Now, in this provocative work, he challenges the encroaching orthodoxy on Russia and China, arguing persuasively that the way forward is not to force our current conflict into a decades-old paradigm but to learn from our Cold War past so that democracy can again emerge victorious. Examining America’s layered, modern history with both Russia and China, he demonstrates that, instead of simplistically framing our competition with China and Russia as a second Cold War, we must understand the unique military, economic, and ideological challenges that come from China and Russia today, and the develop innovative policies that follow from that analysis, not just a return to the Cold War playbook.

At once a clarion call for American foreign policy and a forceful rebuttal of the creeping Washington consensus around China, Autocrats vs. Democrats demonstrates that the key to prevailing in this new era isn’t simply defeating our enemies through might, but using their oppressive regimes against them—to remind the world of the power and potential that our democratic freedoms make possible. 

Michael McFaul headshot

Professor Michael McFaul

FSI Director
"Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global" is available starting October 28, 2025.
Order Now

Hauck Auditorium, Traitel Building, 435 Lasuen Mall, Stanford, CA 94305

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. 

CV
Date Label
Michael McFaul
Lectures
Date Label
-
Mary Elise Sarotte — Post-Cold War Era as History

Professor Mary Elise Sarotte, award-winning historian and author of Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate, will offer reflections on the difficult task of writing history that is still unfolding. Covering the pivotal years from 1989 to 2022, her work traces how early decisions at the end of the Cold War shaped the trajectory of U.S.–Russia relations and contributed to the impasse that continues to trouble the international order today. In this conversation, Sarotte will explore the historian’s challenge of disentangling myth from evidence, of balancing archival distance with contemporary resonance, and of reckoning with a legacy that remains deeply contested and urgently relevant.

The event will begin with opening remarks from Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). The event will conclude with an audience Q&A.

This event is co-sponsored by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), and the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC).

speakers

Mary Elise Sarotte

Mary Elise Sarotte

Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Kravis Professor of Historical Studies
full bio

Mary Elise Sarotte received her AB in History and Science from Harvard and her PhD in History from Yale. She is an expert on the history of international relations, particularly European and US foreign policy, transatlantic relations, and Western relations with Russia. Her book, Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate, was shortlisted for both the Cundill Prize and the Duke of Wellington Medal, received the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Prize Silver Medal, and won the Pushkin House Prize for Best Non-Fiction Book on Russia. Not One Inch is now appearing in multiple Asian and European languages, including a best-selling and updated version in German, Nicht einen Schritt weiter nach Osten. In 2026, Sarotte will return to Yale for a joint appointment as a tenured professor in both the Jackson School of Global Affairs and the School of Organization and Management.

Kathryn Stoner

Kathryn Stoner

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

Kathryn Stoner is the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), and a Senior Fellow at CDDRL and the Center on International Security and Cooperation at FSI. From 2017 to 2021, she served as FSI's Deputy Director. She is Professor of Political Science (by courtesy) at Stanford, and she teaches in the Department of Political Science, in the Program on International Relations, as well as in 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 (616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford)

This is a hybrid event. For virtual participation, if prompted for a password, use: 123456

Mary Elise Sarotte Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Presenter Johns Hopkins University
Lectures
Date Label
Paragraphs
Cover of Autocrats vs Democrats Book

Amid the constant party divisions in Washington, DC, one issue generates stunning consensus—China—with Republicans and Democrats alike battling over which party can take the most hawkish stance toward the ascendant superpower. Indeed, far from trying to avoid a new Cold War with China, many have embraced it, finding comfort in the familiar construct, almost willing it into existence. And yet, even as politicians and intellectuals race to embrace this Cold War 2.0, many of the perils we face today are distinctly different from those of the Cold War with the Soviets. The alliance between the autocracies of China and Russia, the nature of the ideological struggle, China’s economic might, the rise of the far right in the United States and in Europe, and the growing isolationism and polarization in American society—taken together these represent new challenges for the democratic world. Some elements of the Cold War have reappeared today, but many features of the current great power competition have no analogy from the past century.

For decades Michael McFaul, former ambassador to Russia and international affairs analyst for NBC News, has been one of the preeminent thinkers about American foreign policy. Now, in this provocative work, he challenges the encroaching orthodoxy on Russia and China, arguing persuasively that the way forward is not to force our current conflict into a decades-old paradigm but to learn from our Cold War past so that democracy can again emerge victorious. Examining America’s layered, modern history with both Russia and China, he demonstrates that, instead of simplistically framing our competition with China and Russia as a second Cold War, we must understand the unique military, economic, and ideological challenges that come from China and Russia today, and the develop innovative policies that follow from that analysis, not just a return to the Cold War playbook.

At once a clarion call for American foreign policy and a forceful rebuttal of the creeping Washington consensus around China, Autocrats vs. Democrats demonstrates that the key to prevailing in this new era isn’t simply defeating our enemies through might, but using their oppressive regimes against them—to remind the world of the power and potential that our democratic freedoms make possible. 

Michael McFaul headshot

Professor Michael McFaul

FSI Director
"Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global" is available starting October 28, 2025.
ORDER NOW
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Subtitle

From FSI Director, New York Times bestselling author, and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul comes a clear-eyed look at how the rise of autocratic China and Russia are compelling some to think that we have entered a new Cold War—and why we must reject that thinking in order to prevail. 

Authors
Michael A. McFaul
Book Publisher
Mariner Books
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
Subscribe to Russia