Indonesia’s “New Order,” the authoritarian military regime led by General Suharto from 1966-1998, originated following the kidnapping and killing of six Army generals on September 30th-October 1, 1965. The conventional narrative often depicts this regime change as a sudden event, but historian Norman Joshua, APARC's 2023-24 Shorenstein postdoctoral fellow on contemporary Asia, challenges this view.  Joshua’s research explains why the civil-military relationships and social militarization that emerged in Indonesia from the period under Dutch colonial rule in the preceding decade allowed the New Order to solidify power in 1965.

In a recent seminar hosted by APARC’s Southeast Asia Program, “Militarization Overlooked: Rethinking the Origins of Indonesia’s New Order, 1950-1965,” Joshua shared his insights into the complex phenomenon of militarization within Indonesian society, spanning from the tumultuous post-independence era to the present day. Through a historian's lens, he traces the origins of militarization and its far-reaching impacts on political, social, and cultural dynamics in Indonesia.

An Environment Conducive to Militarization

At the heart of this narrative lies the period following Indonesia's revolutionary struggle and independence from Dutch colonial rule. Scholars have portrayed the 1950s favorably as a time when Indonesia embarked on an experiment with liberal and constitutional democracy. Joshua, however, argues that, instead of heralding an era of stability and democratic governance, “the post-revolutionary landscape was fraught with underdevelopment, persistent conflict, and political instability.” This environment provided fertile ground for the gradual militarization of Indonesian society, as the military sought to quell armed groups and revolutionary violence.

"In essence, my current project is an endeavor to write a social and cultural history of Indonesian authoritarianism," Joshua explains. He frames this process as militarization, wherein civil society organizes itself for the production of violence.

Joshua's scholarly curiosity about Indonesian authoritarianism stems from his deep-seated interest in the country's post-revolutionary period. He is particularly drawn to the oft-overlooked years of the 1950s and 1960s, which he deems pivotal in comprehending Indonesia's authoritarian trajectory. He was also drawn to the topic by a family member’s involvement in the revolutionary and Communist movements, leading to their exile from Indonesia after the 1965 massacres, “which sparked my interest in studying ‘those who were on the wrong side of history,' so to speak.”

Joshua sheds light on the role of armed revolutionary factions like the Gerombolan, whose lingering presence posed a challenge to the nascent Indonesian government's efforts to establish control and maintain order, even bearing responsibility for the murder of Yale professor Raymond Kennedy and Time-Life reporter Robert Doyle.

"Militarization produced a militarized society that was regimented and conditioned towards the use of violence," Joshua asserts. His analysis reveals how militarization permeated various facets of Indonesian society, from the adoption of military symbolism to the normalization of violence in everyday life.

An Enduring Legacy of Militarization

Joshua cites the continuing role of the military and police in post-1998 Indonesian society. The Army—and the Police, which is in many ways a constabulary force—have retained their territorial organization, and former and active-duty military and police often participate in non-security affairs. He also highlights the important role of security forces in facing domestic challenges such as the ongoing insurgency in Papua.

Joshua considers militarization from a cultural standpoint, including the fetishization of uniforms, marches, and militia-like organizations. Militarization, he notes, is often manifested in slogans, songs, ceremonies, and indoctrination programs. For example, the slogan "Ganyang Malaysia," originating from Sukarno's call to "crush" Malaysia, became emblematic of Indonesian nationalism and militarism.

Challenges for Democracy

Despite the downfall of the New Order regime, Joshua underscores the implications of the enduring legacy of militarization in contemporary Indonesia. Just two months ago, Indonesian voters elected Prabowo Subianto, a former special forces commander with a controversial history, as their next president. Expressing apprehensions about the potential for further militarization, Joshua points to the ascendancy of leaders like Prabowo. "Militarization under Prabowo would be evident in two ways," he cautions, citing increased military budgets and an expanded role for the military in non-security affairs. “While we have yet to hear about the shape of Prabowo’s cabinet, I believe that we will see an increasing role for the military and police—whether active-duty or retired—in non-military affairs,” he said.

“This trend started during the Jokowi administration and will continue under Prabowo, and has invited concerns from civil rights organizations and human rights groups. Ultimately, I think Prabowo’s election is a test for Indonesia’s democratic values and how resilient the civil society is.”

Assessing the health of Indonesian democracy, Joshua notes fluctuations that warrant concern. "Indonesian democracy is still working well, especially compared to neighboring countries," he observes. “I think the election of Prabowo shows the robustness of Indonesian democratic procedures, as the 2024 Presidential Election was conducted peacefully and with relatively minor complaints of voting fraud or irregularities.” However, he highlights potential challenges ahead. “It appears that Indonesian democracy will face a great challenge in the next four years, and we will see if the guardrails of democratic procedure will hold or not.”

An Interdisciplinary Scholar Community

As a Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellow, Joshua connected with APARC scholars to further his research. “I work mostly with Southeast Asia Program Director Don Emmerson and am glad to be connected with APARC faculty Stephen Kotkin, who I found as an inspiration for my work,” he notes. Engaging with Lee Kong Chian Fellow on Southeast Asia Soksamphoas Im, who works on authoritarian politics in Cambodia, with fellow scholar Yuya Ouchi, and Visiting Scholar Gita Wirjawan, who is an expert practitioner of Indonesian politics, has also been an enriching experience, Joshua says. conversations with .”

Delving into the Hoover Institution archives, Joshua examined the papers of Guy Pauker, an Indonesianist and “Cold Warrior” in the 1960s, and his engagement with Indonesian poet, writer, and scholar Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana, who was a fellow at Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

“I am grateful to have spent my postdoctoral fellowship at APARC, as it allows me to spend more time working on my dissertation toward transforming it into a monograph,” said Joshua.

“The interdisciplinary nature of APARC is particularly helpful for a young scholar like me and helped the process of refining my arguments, especially in terms of engaging with people outside of my field and academic discipline."

After his time at APARC, Joshua will serve as the Hoover History Lab’s Research and Teaching Fellow at the Hoover Institution under Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Kotkin.

Joshua’s research provides a comprehensive exploration of the nature of civil-military relations within Indonesian society. By tracing its historical roots and examining its contemporary manifestations, he provides valuable insights into how militarization has shaped Indonesia's political, social, and cultural milieu.

His analysis of the militarizing process offers scholars insights into an understudied period in Indonesian history and helps us better understand the origins of authoritarian military regimes worldwide. As Indonesia continues to navigate its path forward, grappling with the legacies of its militarized past will undoubtedly remain a complex and pressing challenge.

“I believe that history serves as more than just a chronicle of the past,” Joshua reflects. “It serves as a vital lens through which we can comprehend and contextualize the events that are still unfolding in our contemporary world.”
 

‘Unwavering commitment’

Matviichuk was a visiting scholar at CDDRL in the Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program, a predecessor to the Center’s current Strengthening Ukrainian Democracy and Development Program, during the 2017-18 academic year. 

Kathryn Stoner, the Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, said, “For her unwavering commitment to her work, Matviichuk has received international recognition for her work on issues such as democratic reforms, improved public control, and oversight of law enforcement agencies and the judiciary in the wake of the 2004 Orange Revolution.” Matviichuk received the Democracy Defender Award in 2016.

During the question-and-answer session, Michael McFaul, director of FSI and former ambassador to Russia, said that while he totally agreed with aid to Ukraine, it was important to explain to skeptical Americans how U.S. support will favorably change the situation on the ground for Ukraine and what this means overall for democracy on a global scale.

Matviichuk said, “It’s very simple. We will survive. Because when the United States and other countries start to provide Ukraine with weapons, it gives us a chance to push Russian troops out.”

As the head of the Center for Civil Liberties, which received the Nobel Peace Prize under her leadership, and a human rights lawyer focused on issues within Ukraine and the OSCE region, Matviichuk now leads initiatives aimed at fostering democracy and safeguarding human rights. Her organization supports legislative reforms, monitors law enforcement and the judiciary, conducts wide education programs, and leads international solidarity efforts. 

Global Democracy vs. Authoritarianism

Law and order represent critical distinctions between Russian authoritarianism and global democracy, said Matviichuk, who tearfully noted at one point that she recently lost a close friend in a Russian attack.

“As a human rights lawyer, I found myself in a situation where the law doesn’t work. Russian troops are destroying residential buildings, schools, churches, museums, and hospitals. They’re attacking evacuation corridors; they’re torturing people, infiltration camps. They’ve forcibly taken Ukrainian children to Russia. They ban Ukrainian language and culture,” she said.

In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Matviichuk co-founded the “Tribunal for Putin” initiative, documenting war crimes across affected Ukrainian regions. 

“We have an ambitious goal to document every criminal episode that has been committed in the smallest settlement in Ukraine. Working together, we have already recorded and contributed over 68,000 episodes of war crimes to our database. We are documenting more than just violations of the Geneva Conventions. We are documenting human pain,” she said.

She said the Russian-Ukraine War demonstrates that the West is now dealing with the formation of an entire authoritarian bloc. “They all feature a crucial commonality. All these regimes have the same idea of what a human being is. Authoritarian leaders consider people as objects of control and deny them rights and freedoms. Democracies consider people's rights and freedoms to be their highest value, and there is no way to negotiate this because it only exists in the free world.”

The conflict has increased an axis of authoritarianism between Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. “I live in Kyiv, and my native city, like thousands of other Ukrainian cities, are constantly being shelled not just by Russian rockets but also Iranian rockets and Chinese,” she said.

Russia has never been punished for a long list of attacks in recent years. “They believe they can do whatever they want. I‘ve talked to hundreds of people who survived Russian captivity. They told me how they were beaten, raped, smashed into wooden boxes, and electrically shocked. They were compelled to write something with their own blood. There is no legitimate reason for doing this. There is also no military necessity in it. Russians did these horrific things only because they could,” Matviichuk said.

Putin and NATO

Matviichuk said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not as afraid of NATO as he is of the idea of freedom. “The people in Ukraine want peace much more than anyone else. But peace doesn't come when the country which was invaded stops fighting. That's not peace. That’s occupation.”

She added, “If we don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, he will go further. And we have no time.”

Matviichuk said Putin governs his country not just through repression and censorship but also through a special social contract between the Kremlin elite and the Russian people. “This social contract is based on Russian glory—the problem is that, unfortunately, the majority of Russian people still see their glory in the forcible restoration of the Russian Empire.”

War Crimes, Accountability

Matviichuk urged establishing a special tribunal on Russian aggression in Ukraine to hold Putin, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenka, and other alleged war criminals accountable. 

“The scale of work grows so fast that it becomes impossible to recognize all these stories, but I will tell you one,” she said. “The story of Svetlana, who lost her entire family when the Russian missile hit her building. I heard them dying. My husband was breathing heavily, straining as if he was trying to throw the rubble off of himself, but he couldn’t. At some point, he just went still. My grandmother and Jania died instantly. I heard my daughter crying … My mother told me that he called for me several times and then nothing. People are not numbers. We must ensure justice for all people affected by this war, regardless of who they are.”

She said the calls of some for Ukraine to stop defending itself and to satisfy Russia’s imperial appetites are immoral. 

The world has entered a period of turbulence, and “now fires will occur more and more often in different parts of the world because the international wiring is faulty and the sparks are everywhere,” Matviichuk said.

The S.T. Lee Lectureship is named for Seng Tee Lee, a business executive and noted philanthropist. Dr. Lee is the director of the Lee group of companies in Singapore and of the Lee Foundation. He endowed the annual lectureship at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies in order to raise public understanding of the complex policy issues facing the global community today and to increase support for informed international cooperation.

Artificial Intelligence promises to transform Public Defenders in Brazil, as seen throughout our fieldwork trip in Rio de Janeiro. Our team spent the week discussing the integration of AI in legal practices with defenders from 13 states and experts from Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade (ITS Rio) and COPPE / UFRJ. We focused on developing AI tools tailored to reduce administrative burdens, enabling defenders to concentrate on advocacy. With nearly 80% of Brazilians entitled to free legal aid, AI can automate routine tasks like document categorization and grammatical corrections.

Significant challenges relate to privacy and potential biases in algorithms, underscoring the need for collaborative governance to ethically implement these solutions. Thus, a unified technological strategy is crucial. We hope that through our work, we can create a collaborative governance framework that will facilitate the development of digital and AI tools, ultimately helping citizens at large. We appreciated the opportunity to learn from incredibly dedicated professionals who are excited to find new ways to jointly develop tools.

We met with government agencies, legislators, military and national security officials, private sector actors, and civil society figures within Taiwan's vibrant ecosystem for countering Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI). On the ground, the team found that China’s FIMI operations are evolving and increasingly subtle and complex. As generative AI empowers malign actors, our team assessed that the battle against sophisticated, state-sponsored influence campaigns requires a more integrated and strategic approach that spans legal, technological, and societal responses.

During their time in Ghana, Skylar and Maya met with various stakeholders in the Ghanaian transportation field, including government agencies, ride-share apps, freight businesses, academics, and paratransit operators. Presently, paratransit operators, known locally as "tro tros," dominate the public transportation space and with a variety of meetings with their union officials and drivers in terminals around Accra they were able to learn about the nature of the tro tro business and their relationships — and lack thereof — with the government.

In D.C., Rosie met with development organizations and transport officials and attended the World Bank’s Transforming Transportation Conference and their paratransit and finance roundtable. Collectively, they learned about the issues facing the transport industry primarily related to problems surrounding bankability, infrastructure and vehicle financing, and lack of government collaboration with stakeholders. Insights from the trip spurred their team away from conventional physical interventions and toward solutions that will bridge stakeholder gaps and improve transport governance and policy implementation.

Our team had the opportunity to go to Mongolia and Washington DC where we conducted over twenty structured interviews with a variety of stakeholders. We spoke with people including local and central government officials, officials of international organizations, representatives from mining and cashmere industries, community organizations, academic researchers, herder households, NGOs and Mongolian politicians. Though we knew the practice of nomadic herding is core to Mongolia’s national identity, we didn’t fully realize just how integrated this practice, and the problem of grassland degradation, are in the economy, society and politics of Mongolia.

In the run-up to Mongolia’s election in June, this issue was especially top of mind to those we interviewed. Everyone we spoke with had some form of direct connection with herding, mostly through their own families. Our interviews, as well as being in Ulaanbaatar and the surrounding provinces, helped us to deepen our understanding of the context in which possible interventions operate. Most especially we observed all the extensive work that is being done to tackle grassland degradation and that institutionalizing and supporting these existing approaches could help tackle this issue.

While on the ground, our team met with members from Chinese student organizations and professional associations to gather primary evidence on the online harms they face. We also met with Tom Udall, the U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand, his team, and university faculty to brainstorm solutions to tackle this problem. We learned about the prevalent use of “super-apps” beyond WeChat in crowdsourcing solutions and support, and were able to better grasp the complexities of the relationships between public safety organizations and the focus demographic. In retrospect, it was insightful to hear from actors across the public, private, and civic sectors about the prevalence of online harms and how invested major stakeholders are in finding common solutions through a joint, holistic approach.

Our team met with private sector mini grid developers, government officials from the public utilities commission and energy ministry, and rural communities benefiting from mini grid electrification. While we saw first-hand the significant impact that solar mini grids can have on communities living in energy poverty, we also developed a deeper understanding of the macroeconomic, market, and policy conditions preventing the industry from reaching its full potential of providing energy access to millions of Sierra Leoneans. Moving forward, we will explore innovative climate finance solutions and leverage our policy experience to develop feasible recommendations specific to the local environment.

During our travels around Taiwan and our many meetings, we were surprised with the lack of consensus among local decision-makers regarding which potential solution pathways were likely to yield the most timely and effective results. These discrepancies often reflected the presence of information asymmetries and divergent institutional interests across stakeholders—both of which run counter to Taiwan’s most urgent strategic priorities. Revising existing bureaucratic authorities and facilitating the spread of technical expertise would enable—and enrich—investment in future resilience.

While we anticipated that structural inefficiencies would impede change to some degree, our onsite interviews gave us a clearer picture of where policy interventions will likely have the most positive effect for Taiwan's defense. With the insights from our fieldwork, we intend to spend the remainder of the quarter exploring new leads, delving into theory of change, and designing a set of meaningful policy recommendations.

Estimated $18 Billion Reconstruction 

To begin with, projected reconstruction costs to rebuild Gaza currently total $18 billion, said Galit Cohen, director of the Program on Climate Change at the Israel Institute for National Security. She has experience identifying and analyzing risks and opportunities for Israel’s national security in the field of climate change.

Water, sewage, waste, food and air pollution risks abound in Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, Cohen said. At least 57 percent of water, sanitation and health facilities in Gaza have been destroyed so far, including desalinization plants, and only 3-7 liters of water is typically available per day for each person, which is well below the recommended minimum of 50-100 liters.

“In the current situation in regard to the environmental issues, it's about the water security and about the sewage, sanitation and construction waste – all the list of those issues that need to be mitigated and also dealt with,” Cohen said. For example, “there is no active wastewater treatment facility now in Gaza,” and the many unclaimed dead bodies deep in the rubble pose environmental risks as well.

As for solutions, she said, “Trying to build the institutions and the government that can undertake the responsibility of the civil society there” is the first step to working together on a rebuild of Gaza. The goal should be to create a new coalition with the U.S. and countries such as Egypt, Jordan, UAE, and Saudi Arabia (and others) that can undertake a reconstruction of Gaza so Palestinians can live there without enduring an environmental catastrophe.

“This is the only way we can survive here – Israel and all the rest,” Cohen said.
 

Coalition Building

Dr. Tareq Abu Hamed, director of the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, described the sensitive environmental interdependence of countries in the region.

“The streams and rivers originating in Israel and the West Bank originate in Jordan, and in Israel the vast majority of the aquifers of underground water in our region is shared between Israel and its neighbors – between Jordan and its neighbors, and it’s shared between Palestine and its neighbors. That means if there’s an environmental challenge or an environmental issue with the water that we have, one country alone cannot deal with it. Regional cooperation is a must,” he said.

Dr. Hamed has served as the Israeli Ministry of Science’s Deputy Chief Scientist, and later the Acting Chief Scientist, and was the highest ranking Palestinian in the Israeli government. About his current position at the Arava Institute, he said, “We use the environment as a tool. We use science as [a] diplomacy tool to bring people together. We use science to build bridges, to build trust, and to build understanding.”

The regional effects in climate change could be exacerbated by the war in Gaza, he said. “The region that we live in is a hotspot when it comes to climate change, the heat waves, and the sea level rise.”

The warming of the Eastern Mediterranean is increasing, and it is already much higher than any other place in the world, he said. On top of this, climate change often produces migration to other areas, creating possible instability effects for existing populations in the new areas, and statistics show people already have been moving out of Gaza and other countries in the immediate region, likely due to the worsening climate, and in addition now, to the conflict.

He said the intense bombing of Gaza has significantly damaged farmlands, infrastructure, including apartment buildings, the roads, water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants and water wells. “What happened on Oct. 7 happened because of the lack of knowledge of the other side.” 

He added, “This is a great chance for us to rethink what happened and to rebuild a better future for all of us.”
 

Renewable Energy Concerns – or Opportunity?

The war in Gaza seriously affects the prospect of green or renewable energy in the immediate conflict area, said Dorit Banet, who co-founded the Eilat-Eilot Renewable Energy Initiative and has been Israel’s leading government official in the area of renewable energy for two decades.

More than 100,000 Israelis were estimated to be displaced from their homes in southern Israel after Oct. 7. Banet has noted in prior media stories that some in Israel are eying a push to “build back better” by transforming the region into a more sustainable area. Israel has committed to reaching 30% renewable energy by 2030, though that may be difficult.

Banet said at least another 2 gigawatts of solar renewable energy could be immediately produced in one particular Israeli area based on the existing infrastructure – and eventually as much as another 8.5 gigawatts of solar energy. 

This would offer people in the area much more energy resilience, she said. “In such areas, this needs to be totally agreed upon with totally new regulation in Israel.”
 

Promoting Resilience

Victor Weiss, director of sustainability for the Israel National Security Council, said the ongoing war could have a negative impact on the global economy, the availability of budget, and the willingness of countries to allocate resources to climate issues.   

“A regional war is expected to affect fuel markets and lead to damaged supply chains” and the general instability of markets, said Weiss, who was a senior military officer and founder of the Israel Defense Force’s Environmental Unit.

“We have to build a new relationship and partnerships with the other regional countries to promote resilience,” he added.

Weiss said that Israel’s National Security Council recently defined climate issues as a strategic threat to that country’s national security. “The climate chapter was written in the National Security Council Risk Assessment and the main threats were mapped. We are working to define the threats, to formulate the national response to those threats,” he said.

An opportunity exists for Israel, Gaza and every population affected by this conflict to “go forward on the hope of an optimistic future to our region,” he said.

‘Powerful, Informative’

In closing, Prof. Diamond described the discussion as “very powerful, informative and in the end, also moving” for the audience. “There’s going to be a staggering challenge of reconstruction when this war is over, and hopefully we can get started on it as soon as possible.”

Alon Tal added, “We’ve only begun this discussion about the reconstruction. Let’s hope that very quickly we can end the destruction, the death and the suffering, and move forward to a time of renewal.”
 

The full webinar of "Environmental Lessons and Implications of the Gaza War" is available to view below.

Leshchenko said that the perception by some in the West that the war is “unwinnable” is inaccurate when viewed through a historical lens. “We are in 1941. We don't know what the result will be in the end. But we have to fight because if you don’t fight, the result will be horrible.”

Ustinova added, "Poland, or another country, will be next, and it may be a NATO country. And then the Americans would need to put boots on the ground and fight a European war again and lose thousands of your people.”

Russia has created a false narrative about Ukrainian corruption, she said. “What Ukraine was ten years ago and what Ukraine is now are two different countries. We have created very efficient new anti-corruption institutions, like our National Anti-Corruption Bureau, that are supported and highly admired by our international partners, including the United States. We have more than 600 cases in court against former state officials or existent state officials.”

‘Our fight for freedom’

Matviichuk said delays in U.S. military aid are a major concern in Ukraine. “In this difficult situation, we have no other choice. Our people in Ukraine will continue our fight for freedom and democracy because if we stop fighting, there will be no more Ukrainians.”

Leshchenko said he had recently been in the Donetsk region, where he visited two Ukrainian brigades. He urged the continuation of American military assistance as the lack of support was affecting their troops.

“The general mood is quite uncertain,” he said. “The soldiers are really disappointed with the lack of ammunition for vehicles and artillery, which they need to attack Russian positions. Unfortunately, they cannot do so now — this lack of ammunition is crucial.” But he added, “We will keep fighting.”

Ustinova said the world has grown too comfortable in believing that Ukraine would prevail without ongoing support. 

“A year ago, when I was speaking on this same panel, I was very enthusiastic because we were planning the counteroffensive. We had been successful in getting some territories back, and I think the world was really clapping and standing behind Ukrainians for winning the war within the last year. It is very sad for me to say now from Kyiv that everything has changed,” she said.

Russia was the only country that ramped up its ammunition and weapons production over the past couple of years, she added. “Last year, they tripled the production of their ballistic and ultrasonic missiles.” 

Noting that Russia has kidnapped more than 20,000 Ukrainian children, Ustinova said, “This is not just a Ukrainian conflict. This is a much bigger deal we are looking at right now. We have Iran. We have North Korea. We have Russia standing on one side, and we have the Western world and democracy standing on the other side. I’m so sorry to say, but the first group is so far more efficient than the second one.”

She explained, “It’s much easier for autocracies and those regimes to be united and take the decisions to ramp up their production lines than for the Western democracies who have to debate and negotiate.”

Technology race, Ukrainian efficiencies

Honcharuk said the war has crystalized Ukraine’s focus on military efficiency. Last year, his teams completed about 2,000 combat missions and destroyed over 700 units of enemy military equipment. This year, they are planning for 20,000 combat missions.

“I believe Ukraine is already a trendsetter,” he said. “The technology race is very fast when you have a war. Day by day, you are trying to compete with the enemy, and Ukraine is forced to maintain this very high pace to survive. There is only one country that currently has the same high pace, and it may be even higher — that is Russia.”

He said that Russia already understands that Ukraine will not give up “I believe now Russia is trying to find other weak spots on democratic camp … It’s very sad if they are right. The whole free world is in a very dangerous situation because Russia learned their lessons very fast, and they are much more dangerous than they were a year or two ago.”

Yet Honcharuk described the Ukrainian army as the best army in the world to fight against Russia. “We understand both systems, NATO systems and post-Soviet systems, at the same time, and we can destroy and damage Russian forces with very few resources.”

Ustinova noted the grim irony of Russia chairing the United Nations Security Council. “The United Nations was invented to prevent the wars in the world. Russia is the number one terrorist in the world, and they are the chair of the Security Council of the United Nations?! Everybody pretends this to be okay?!”

‘A hard war’

Stoner said that the Russian invasion has wrought significant damage on Ukraine as a country. “The World Bank estimated last year that it would cost over $411 billion for Ukrainian reconstruction, and I’m sure that number has increased rather dramatically in the last six or so months.”

In closing, McFaul told the panelists, “A lot of your friends are here in the audience. We miss you. We want you to come back. We want to celebrate victory. But we’re also worried about you. This is a hard war, and you are all very involved in everything in your own ways. I cannot believe you’re being so generous with your time with us as late as it is there.”

Stoner added, “This is not just a Ukrainian fight, it is. It is a fight for everyone, and thank you all for everything that you’re doing.”

You can view a recording of the panel and discussion below and read more about the event in the Stanford Daily.