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.

This story originally appeared in the Stanford Report.

The event opened with remarks from Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, and was co-moderated by Stanford's Hakeem Jefferson, assistant professor of political science and IDJ’s faculty director, and UC Berkeley's Jake Grumbach. Following the conversation, the panel engaged the standing-room-only crowd through a lively audience Q&A.

In their talk, Levitsky and Ziblatt reiterated their argument that democratic erosion in the United States has been enabled by “democratic semi-loyalist” elites who prioritize their own career incentives or partisan gains over their duty to condemn anti-democratic behavior, such as instigating political violence or refusing to accept electoral defeats.

Grumbach and Jefferson invited the authors to discuss how their background as scholars of comparative politics – Levitsky and Ziblatt have studied Latin American and European politics, respectively – informed their analysis of American democracy. The authors commented on how remarkable they found the parallels between moments when democratic norms have come under question in other countries, like the February 6 insurrection in France or Peronist leader Cafiero’s key decision to join President Alfonsín on the balcony of the presidential palace to accept defeat and deter another coup in Argentina, and what we see in the U.S. today.

The conversation also addressed open debates on how concerned we should be about American democracy, and audience members brought up questions on how to think about generational differences, demographic change, and frustrated lawmaking. Jefferson called the launch event an “exciting, energizing convening of ideas” and shared how keen he is to continue these conversations through upcoming program events.

You can learn more about IDJ on the program’s website and watch a recording of the event below.

As nationalism and identity politics have come to dominate public spheres around the world, researchers strive to understand the repercussions of such political behavior. How does nationalism affect the health of a democratic system, and when might it foster well-functioning liberal democracy?

This is the central question that Gidong Kim, APARC’s 2023-25 Korea Program Postdoctoral Fellow, seeks to answer. Kim’s research, situated at the intersection of comparative politics and political economy, focuses on nationalism and identity politics, inequality and redistribution, and migration in South Korea and East Asia. He earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Missouri. In his dissertation, “Nationalism and Redistribution in New Democracies: Nationalist Legacies of Authoritarian Regimes,” he investigated the micro-level underpinnings that sustain weak welfare systems in developmental states. 

As part of his fellowship, Kim works with the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL), a new initiative housed at Shorenstein APARC under the directorship of Professor Gi-Wook Shin. The Lab works to provide evidence-based policy recommendations to help implement structural reforms that foster a “Next Asia” characterized by social, cultural, and economic maturity.

On January 24, 2024, Dr. Kim will present his research at a seminar hosted by the Korea Program. You can register for the event, "Narratives of Inclusion: Evidence from South Korea’s Migration Challenge."

We caught up with Dr. Kim to hear more about his fellowship experience this academic year and what’s next. The conversation has been slightly edited for length and clarity. 

First off, can you describe your current research project?

Broadly speaking, as a comparative political scientist, I study nationalism and its behavioral consequences with a regional focus on Korea and East Asia. More specifically, because nationalism is sometimes harmful to liberal democracy, but it can also be helpful, I research when and how national sentiments have either negative or positive effects on liberal democracy through citizens’ political attitudes and behaviors, such as voting behavior, redistribution preferences, migration attitudes, and public opinion on foreign policy.  

How did you come to be interested in this topic?

I was born and raised in South Korea and earned my B.A. and M.A. in political science at a Korean university before pursuing my Ph.D. in the United States. Because I was originally interested in partisan politics, my goal was to understand how American voters think and behave, so that I can explain Korean politics using theories developed in the United States. However, as I took graduate seminars about American politics, I – both as a Korean and as an East Asian – learned that such theories could not be applied well to the Korean and East Asian context.  

It was my second year of the Ph.D. program when I had academic dissatisfaction about the discrepancy between Western theories and East Asian reality. Dr. Aram Hur, my doctoral advisor, has significantly influenced my academic interests and identity. Every conversation that I had with her led me to new insights.

In particular, we focused on nationalism, which can arise not only from each country’s different historical trajectories but also from citizens’ different interpretations and understandings of such trajectories. Since then, based on my personal experience and knowledge of Korea, I tried to challenge the extant political science theories to offer my explanation of Korean and East Asian political dynamics, especially through a lens of nationalism.  

How has your time at APARC as a Korea Program Postdoc helped your research?

APARC provides me with the best academic environment. First, everyone at the Center is open and always welcomes me whenever I need their help. For example, if I want to develop and sharpen my research ideas, I can share my ideas anytime with excellent scholars who always give me constructive feedback. I believe the in-person conversations I can have whenever necessary are the best part of APARC from which I benefit.

Moreover, both the Korea Program and APARC organize many events. Our events feature not only scholars but also policymakers. This is a tremendous help because I believe the ultimate goal of doing research is to make a better society. 

I felt that many U.S. social science Ph.D. programs, including in political science, aim to train their Ph.D. students as researchers who can write papers, less as leaders who can contribute to our communities. But the diverse events at the Korea Program and APARC keep reminding me of the importance of both roles by giving me a balanced perspective.

Are there any individuals who you connected with during your time at APARC?

Since I came here, I met diverse faculty members and excellent students. But I want to share my interactions with Research Fellow Dr. Xinru Ma and Postdoctoral Fellow Dr. Junki Nakahara. Because we share an office, we always have opportunities to discuss our research ideas, different perspectives, and even daily lives. In particular, while I’m a comparative political scientist, Xinru is an international relations (IR) scholar and Junki is a communication scholar. Because we have different academic foundations, this collaborative environment is extremely helpful for me to sharpen my research ideas.

Can you describe the new SNAPL lab and share a bit about your experience?

SNAPL is led by Prof. Gi-Wook Shin, and its full name is ‘Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab.’ As you can see from the name, SNAPL has two main goals. First, we address emerging political, social, economic, and cultural challenges in Asia that can direct the ‘next’ Asia. Second, we also try to provide ‘policy’ solutions to those challenges to make the next Asia better. In other words, our ultimate goal is to upgrade Asia to the next level.  

For those goals, we gather every week. Because Xinru, Junki, and I are leading different, but interconnected, projects at SNAPL, we share ongoing respective research at our weekly meetings with Prof. Shin as well as our two excellent research associates, Haley and Irene. 

When we discuss together, we sometimes criticize each other and sometimes cannot reach a consensus. But eventually, our active debates lead us to come up with new ideas and find solutions together. 

This weekly SNAPL meeting is my favorite time because I can share my research, get insightful feedback from Prof. Shin, learn from Xinru and Junki, and also get excellent support from both Haley Gordon and Irene Kyoung. I believe this is the best way of doing research, which is extremely rare in the social science field.

What is on the horizon for you? What's next?

First, as a junior scholar, I plan to focus on my research into nationalism and its political behavioral consequences. The projects I am leading at SNAPL focus on how the international relations context, such as the growing U.S.-China tensions and dynamics of alliance relationships, shapes global citizens’ attitudes toward neighboring countries and foreign policy. Because these projects are fundamentally related to national sentiments, by focusing on my SNAPL projects, I want to not only contribute to SNAPL as a postdoctoral fellow but also produce good research as an independent scholar.

Second, as my long-term goal, I want to further promote Korean studies in the United States. Despite the growing academic and public interest in Korea, many people still have a limited understanding of the country. 

As a scholar, one way that I can think of to offer a better explanation of Korea is to actively produce scholarly works, such as books and papers, and more importantly, to share them through diverse networks. Thus, someday in the future, I want to lead an institute for Korean Studies and create diverse channels to share such works.