DOCSLIB.ORG

Contributors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contributors Contributors is a former defence analyst who is presently pursuing an MBA at the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, United States. His previous work has appeared in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Defense Analysis and International Studies Review. is the Director of the International Policy Institute at King’s College London. He is a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Defence Committee and has been engaged in commissioned studies for NATO AFNORTH, for the Ministry of Defence and for a number of European institutes on European Security and Defence Policy issues. is Director of the Centre for Defence Studies at the International Policy Institute, King’s College London. is Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham. He is the author (with Jolyon Howorth, Terry Terriff and Mark Webber) of ‘Ensuring Europe’s security? Enlarging NATO again’ (International Affairs, January 2002), ‘NATO’s triple challenge’ (International Affairs, July 2002), and (with Terry Terriff, Lucy James and Patrick Morgan) of Security studies today (1999). is an Assistant Professor of International Relations and Political Science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, where he is also Director of Graduate Studies for the International Relations Program. He is the author of At arm’s length: the European Union and Europe’s defence industry (1998) and The United States and the European Union: the political economy of a relationship (1999). is Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics at the Uni- versity of Bath. During 2002–2003 he is Visiting Professor at New York University, Columbia University and Yale University. He is the editor of Europeans on Europe: transnational visions of a new continent (1992) and European integration and defence: the ultimate challenge? (2002). is a Research Fellow at the Centre for European Studies, Harvard University. From 2000 to 2002 she was Research Fellow for the Econ- omic and Social Research Council’s ‘Security governance in the new Europe’ programme at the University of Birmingham. INTA78_4_Contributors 1 9/25/02, 2:25 PM Contributors is Director of the Harvard Project on Cold War Studies at Harvard University, and a senior associate of Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. He is the author of Soldier and states in Poland: civil–military relations and institutional change after communism (forthcoming) and editor of The collapse of the Soviet Union (forthcoming). - is Senior Research Fellow at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris, where he is responsible for transatlantic relations, and Chairman of the EU Task Force on the future of European Defence. He is the author of Terms of engagement (2002). is a Research Fellow at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris. He is the author of Russian peacekeeping strategies towards the CIS (2000) and Managing separatist states: a Eurasian case study (2001). . is Assistant Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. She is the author of The currency of ideas: monetary politics in the European Union (1998) and (with Sheri Berman) of ‘Bank on demo- cracy: why central banks need public oversight’ (Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999). is a Research Associate at the Center of International Studies, Princeton University. She is the author (with Philip H. Gordon) of The French challenge: adapting to globlization (2001) and ‘The French exception’ (Foreign Affairs, July/August 2000). is a Research Fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Her PhD was received from the University of Glasgow and she is the author of several publications on Russia’s relations with Belarus and Ukraine. is Tutor for Admissions and Director of Studies in History at Peterhouse, Cambridge. He is also a Lecturer in International Relations at the Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge. is Senior Lecturer in International Security in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham. He is the author of The Nixon administration and the making of US strategy (1995) and editor (with Theo Farrell) of The sources of military change: culture, politics, technology (2002) and (with Stuart Croft) of Critical reflections on security and change (2000). has recently retired from Brasenose College, Oxford, where he was Supernumerary Fellow in Modern History. He has contributed several review articles of American diplomatic documents to International Affairs. INTA78_4_Contributors 2 9/25/02, 2:25 PM Contributors is Senior Lecturer in Politics in the Department of European Studies, University of Loughborough. He is the editor of Russia and Europe: cooperation or conflict? (2000) and co-author (with Michael Smith et al.) of Foreign policy in a transformed world (2002). is an Assistant Director of Studies in the Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge, a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law and of Hughes Hall, Cambridge. He is the author of The future of international law (forthcoming 2003). Book reviews advisory panel International Relations theory Hidemi Suganami, Keele University, UK International ethics Nicholas Rengger, University of St Andrews, UK International law and organization Christopher Greenwood, LSE, UK Michael C. Williams, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK Foreign relations Martin Walker, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC, USA Conflict, security and armed forces Michael Clarke, Centre for Defence Studies, King’s College London, UK Politics, democracy and social affairs Stephen Green, LSE, UK Ethnicity and cultural politics Robin Cohen, University of Warwick, UK International and global political economy, economics and development R. J. Barry Jones, University of Reading, UK Laura Kelly, Department for International Development, UK (to oversee ethnicity and development issues) Energy and environment Matthew Paterson, Keele University, UK History Susan L. Carruthers, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK Jonathan Haslam, Corpus Christi, Cambridge, UK Europe Ben Rosamond, University of Warwick, UK Russia and the former Soviet Republics Neil Melvin, University of Leeds, UK INTA78_4_Contributors 3 9/25/02, 2:25 PM Contributors Middle East and North Africa Gerd Nonneman, Lancaster University, UK Sub-Saharan Africa Peter Vale, University of the Western Cape, South Africa Asia and Pacific Christopher Hughes, LSE, UK North America Trevor McCrisken, University of Oxford, UK Latin America and Caribbean Nicola Phillips, University of Manchester, UK INTA78_4_Contributors 4 9/25/02, 2:25 PM.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jolyon Howorth & Vivien Schmidt
    EU GLOBAL STRATEGY 50 ExperT Opinion Jolyon Howorth & Vivien Schmidt Visiting Professor of Political Science, Yale University Professor of International Relations, Boston University There is a danger in making the strategic review hope to achieve in the neighbourhood – including too complex. There is merit in recalling the par- the neighbours of the neighbours. The geograph- simonious interpretation of the world that has ic focus is important. The EU is a global trading inspired realists: system anarchy; the fundamen- actor and a key partner of the UN; but in terms tal role of states; the centrality of the distribution of the deployment of crisis management power, of power; balance of power. Indeed, power itself. it should not for the foreseeable future aspire to be anything other than a regional power. These basics remain the© crucialEU Institute forelements Security Studies, of 2015. inter | QN-AL-15-00X-2A-N- | ISBN 978-92-9198-258-5 | ISSN 2315-1129 | DOI 10.2815/77528 national relations. The currencies the EU prefers What might the EU hope to achieve in the neigh- – multilateralism, international law, international bourhood? Lucidity about the EU’s real leverage institutions, diplomacy, soft and smart power – is essential. If EU accession is not on the cards, have all come into their own since 1945 and they leverage is massively reduced. The most the EU have a vital role to play. But there should be no can hope to do in the southern neighbourhood is illusions: positive sum aspirations have not re- to assist local and regional political initiatives aimed placed zero-sum realities.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Institutional Architecture for the Transatlantic Relationship?
    EuropeEurope VVisionsisions 55 A New Institutional Architecture for the Transatlantic Relationship? Jolyon Howorth June 2009 Ifri-Bruxelles The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non governmental and a non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Using an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. With offices in Paris and Brussels, Ifri stands out as one of the rare French think tanks to have positioned itself at the very heart of European debate. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the authors alone. ISBN : 978-2-86592-558-2 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2009 IFRI IFRI-BRUXELLES 27 RUE DE LA PROCESSION RUE MARIE-THÉRÈSE, 21 75740 PARIS CEDEX 15, FRANCE 1000 - BRUXELLES, BELGIQUE PH. : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 PH. : + 32 (0)2 238 51 10 Email : [email protected] Email: [email protected] WEBSITE : Ifri.org Contents THE CRISIS OF TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS ........................................ 2 NATO: P ART OF THE SOLUTION OR PART OF THE PROBLEM ?.............. 4 HISTORY IN FAST -FORWARD MODE ..................................................... 7 REVISED INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE & R ECOMMENDATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • AHA Colloquium
    Cover.indd 1 13/10/20 12:51 AM Thank you to our generous sponsors: Platinum Gold Bronze Cover2.indd 1 19/10/20 9:42 PM 2021 Annual Meeting Program Program Editorial Staff Debbie Ann Doyle, Editor and Meetings Manager With assistance from Victor Medina Del Toro, Liz Townsend, and Laura Ansley Program Book 2021_FM.indd 1 26/10/20 8:59 PM 400 A Street SE Washington, DC 20003-3889 202-544-2422 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.historians.org Perspectives: historians.org/perspectives Facebook: facebook.com/AHAhistorians Twitter: @AHAHistorians 2020 Elected Officers President: Mary Lindemann, University of Miami Past President: John R. McNeill, Georgetown University President-elect: Jacqueline Jones, University of Texas at Austin Vice President, Professional Division: Rita Chin, University of Michigan (2023) Vice President, Research Division: Sophia Rosenfeld, University of Pennsylvania (2021) Vice President, Teaching Division: Laura McEnaney, Whittier College (2022) 2020 Elected Councilors Research Division: Melissa Bokovoy, University of New Mexico (2021) Christopher R. Boyer, Northern Arizona University (2022) Sara Georgini, Massachusetts Historical Society (2023) Teaching Division: Craig Perrier, Fairfax County Public Schools Mary Lindemann (2021) Professor of History Alexandra Hui, Mississippi State University (2022) University of Miami Shannon Bontrager, Georgia Highlands College (2023) President of the American Historical Association Professional Division: Mary Elliott, Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture (2021) Nerina Rustomji, St. John’s University (2022) Reginald K. Ellis, Florida A&M University (2023) At Large: Sarah Mellors, Missouri State University (2021) 2020 Appointed Officers Executive Director: James Grossman AHR Editor: Alex Lichtenstein, Indiana University, Bloomington Treasurer: William F.
    [Show full text]
  • Ivv), 1913 – 1945
    De Internationale van Amsterdam De Wereld van het Internationaal Vakverbond (IVV), 1913 – 1945. 1 Korte Inhoud Inleiding 1 De Wereld van het Internationaal Vakverbond 13 (Amsterdam, Berlijn, Parijs) De Verscheurende roep naar Internationale Eenheid 67 (De Rode Verleiding van het Internationaal Vakverbond) Ondergeschikte of Partner 96 (De moeilijke relatie tussen het IVV als koepel van nationale centrales en de beroepsinternationalen) Genève 114 (De IAO en het sociale hervormingsprogramma van het IVV) Seeking for Problems 135 (De vrouwenwerking van het IVV) Isolationisme of leiderschap 145 (De American Federation of Labor en het Internationaal Vakverbond) Een vrije vakbeweging in een wereld zonder vrijheid 165 (Het IVV tegen fascisme en nazisme) Voorbij het Internationaal vakverbond 196 (De weg naar het Wereldvakverbond) Under Cover 222 (De geheime diensten van de internationale vakbeweging) Conclusies 243 Acroniemen 252 Bijlagen 255 Bibliografie 257 2 Inleiding “The history of labor internationalism is a history of failure, of dreams disappointed, ideals compromised, and institutions corrupted” (Victor Silverman)1. Edo Fimmen had het al voorspeld in 1933 : “the judgement of history upon the labour movement in the years immediatly following the war, and especially upon the leaders of that movement, is not likely to be a merciful one.”2 In juli 1919 werd in Amsterdam het Internationaal Vakverbond (IVV) opgericht. Deze ‘Internationale van Amsterdam’3 verklaarde de oorlog aan de oorlog en wou de arbeiders bevrijden van het kapitalisme. Voor Edo Fimmen, een van de vaders van het IVV, was het al sinds 1923 duidelijk dat het anders zou lopen en hij drong lang maar tevergeefs aan op een meer daadkrachtige internationale vakbeweging.
    [Show full text]
  • France, NATO and ESDP: the Impossible Balancing
    France, NATO and European Security: Status Quo Unsustainable; New Balance Unattainable? Jolyon HOWORTH∗ In January 1947, British and French officials met to discuss draft versions of the Treaty of Dunkirk. A sticking point emerged over the precise conditions under which the proposed mutual defence clause could be invoked. For the French, the simple threat of territorial invasion should trigger British support. For the British, however, only an actual invasion could warrant the implementation of alliance solidarity. This seemingly arcane distinction already presaged the fundamental difference of strategic approach between Paris and London which was to result in fifty years of stalemate in European defence Cupertino. For the United Kingdom (U.K.), too strong a statement of European resolve risked demotivating the United States (U.S.) and encouraging U.S. isolationism. For France, a strong Europe was the logical prerequisite for a strong Alliance. Europe needed to balance U.S. power—in the interests of both parties. Thus, from the outset of the post-war period, France expressed confidence in Europe's ability to safeguard her own future, whereas Britain worried that the old continent could never be secure without the permanent entanglement of the new1. Contrary to a great deal of mythology, France was never opposed to the “involvement of the new”—indeed the mainstream of the political class, including Charles de Gaulle himself, actively pressed for the creation of NATO and for the construction of an Atlantic partnership. What France in general (and the General in particular) could not accept was an imbalanced alliance in which one of the ∗ Jolyon Howorth is Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics at Bath University and Associate Research Fellow at the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri).
    [Show full text]
  • The Political and Security Committee: a Case Study in 'Supranational
    L ES CAHIERS EUROPEENS > N° 01/2010 ……………… The Political and Security Committee: a Case Study in ‘Supranational Intergovernmentalism’ > Jolyon Howorth Les cahiers Européens n° 01/2010 March 2010 JOLYON HOWORTH The Political and Security Committee: a case study in ‘supranational inter-governmentalism’ Jolyon Howorth is Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics ad personam at the University of Bath (UK). He has been a Visiting Professor of Political Science at Yale since 2002. He has published extensively in the field of European politics and history, especially security and defense policy and transatlantic relations. Recent books include: Security and Defence Policy in the European Union, Palgrave, 2007; Defending Europe: the EU, NATO and the Quest for European Autonomy, Palgrave, 2003 (edited with John Keeler); European Integration and Defence: the Ultimate Challenge? Paris, WEU-ISS, 2000. Jolyon Howorth est professeur Jean Monnet de politique européenne à l’Université de Bath (Royaume Uni). Il est professeur invite de science politique à l’Université de Yale depuis 2002. Ses travaux portent sur la politique et l’histoire européenne, notamment sur la politique de sécurité et de défense et sur les relations transatlantiques. Parmi ses ouvrages récemment parus : Security and Defence Policy in the European Union, Palgrave, 2007; Defending Europe: the EU, NATO and the Quest for European Autonomy, Palgrave, 2003 (co-dirigé avec John Keeler); European Integration and Defence: the Ultimate Challenge? Paris, WEU-ISS, 2000. Contact: [email protected] Jolyon Howorth – The PSC: a case study in ‘supranational inter-governmentalism’ Abstract: The distinctive profile of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) as it has emerged to date is complex and far-ranging.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Nr. 1 / 2010
    Kolleg- Forscher Gruppe Newsletter 01 /10 Kolleg-Forschergruppe Ihnestr. 26 14195 Berlin www.transformeurope.eu [email protected] +49 – 30 83 85 70 31 Editorial Staff: Sasan Abdi Farina Ahäuser (fa.) Toshiya Izumo Astrid Timme Headlines New colleagues at the KFG We are pleased to announce that Prof. Vivien Schmidt and Prof. Jolyon Howorth have joined the Kolleg-Forschergruppe in January 2010. Page. 3 Call for Applications The Research College (Kolleg-Forschergruppe) advertises up to 6 post-doctoral fellows starting October 2010. Page. 3 International Conference About 40 researchers from Europe and beyond accepted the invitation to a two-day conference by the KFG taking place at the Representation of the European Commission in Berlin in December 2009. Page. 4 Panel Report To what extent has the European Union served as a model for other regional organiza- tions? Summary of the KFG conference panel ‘ The EU as a model of regional integration’ . Page. 6 Turkey Controversy What is happening to Turkey’s EU reform process? The state of candidacy reviewed by two KFG fellows. Page. 7 Research Experience The research environment at the Kolleg-Forschergruppe: Experiences by Prof. Juan Díez Medrano. Page. 11 The Transformative Power of Europe | www.transformeurope.eu Editorial Dear friends and colleagues of the Kolleg-Forschergruppe, Welcome, once again, to our Kolleg-Forschergruppe ‘The Transformative Power of Europe’! This is our third newsletter informing you about what is going on Prof. Tanja A. Börzel & Prof. Thomas Risse at the KFG. Here are some highlights of what has happened since last fall: On Sept. 1, 2009, the second group of post-doctoral fellows arrived at the KFG.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU As an International Actor: Lessons from the China Arms Embargo Debate
    The EU as an International Actor: Lessons from the China Arms Embargo Debate Paper prepared for the European Union Studies Association Biennial Conference Boston, MA 3-5th March, 2011 Panel 4K: The EU's Relations with China Scott A.W. Brown University of Glasgow Glasgow, Scotland DRAFT – Please do not quote without author’s permission [email protected] Abstract Much of the literature on the European Union’s development as an international actor has focused on either the institutionalisation of foreign policymaking or what type of actor the EU can be regarded as. This paper seeks to examine a dimension which has received comparatively less attention: how other actors in the international arena view the EU. Recognition is a prerequisite for the EU to become a credible international actor. Through examining the EU’s debate over lifting its China arms embargo, this paper reflects on the impact of the debate on the views of the EU held by two other significant actors – the USA and the PRC – and the implications for the EU. The literature on the arms embargo debate has tended to treat it as a case study of EU foreign policymaking or as an issue in EU-China relations. Little has been said about the broader implications for the image of the EU in the eyes of others. Through analysis of the debate’s context and subsequent developments in EU-US and EU-China relations, an evaluation is made of whether the debate can be considered as a setback for developing EU ‘actorness’ and what, if any, lessons have been learned by policymakers.
    [Show full text]
  • European Security Post-Libya and Post-Ukraine: in Search of Core Leadership Jolyon Howorth*
    ImaGininGEURope European Security Post-Libya and Post-Ukraine: In Search of Core Leadership Jolyon Howorth* 1. Introduction The EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), according to the The paper analyses the future governance conclusions of the special December of the Common Security and Defence Policy 19-20, 2013 European Council devoted (CSDP). Unlike other policy areas, the main challenges for CSDP stem from the lack of a to defence, “contributes to peace and core leadership and common purpose rather stability in our neighbourhood and in the ABSTRACT than from institutional design faults. Alongside, 1 broader world.” And yet, in the two most the EU’s dysfunctional relationship with NATO serious regional security crises in the EU’s has reduced the CSDP to a largely civilian neighbourhood since the end of the Cold crisis management endeavour in the wider War – the Arab Spring in general and the EU neigbourhood. Moving forward, the EU Libyan crisis of 2011 in particular, and the ought to capitalize on sub-regional integration crisis in Ukraine and Crimea in 2014, CSDP efforts in this field, while maintaining the EU was not only completely absent from as a whole as the basic reference point and common framework for deeper integration both theatres, but was barely invoked between groups of member states. as a hypothetical or appropriate policy instrument. Moreover, there has been virtually no discernible effort to engineer coordination between CSDP and the 1 European Council, Presidency Conclusions, Brussels, 19-20 December 2013 (EUCO 217/13), para. 1, http:// www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/140245.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Jolyon Howorth
    ONLINE Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V. DOKUMENTATION www.kas.de/brasil The EU, NATO and the eastern Partnership: the unresolvable security dilemma Jolyon Howorth “Without enlargement, Western Europe will always be faced with the threat of instability, conflict and mass migration on its borders.” – Tony Blair, Speech to the Polish Stock Exchange, Warsaw, 6 October 2000 The problem with Blair’s approach, of course, has been that each enlargement has led to even greater instability on the borders. Blair was making the case for enlargement to Poland, in order to avoid instability on the German-Polish border. The result was that the EU’s border became Belarus and Ukraine. The logic of Blair’s speech is that those two countries should therefore be admitted to the EU in order to avoid instability on those borders. The border would then become Russia. Enlargement to Turkey would give the EU a border with Syria, Iraq and Iran. Blair’s “logic” is fatally flawed. The fundamental security dilemma posed by EU and NATO “enlargement” has been that, as these two entities have moved ever closer to Russia proper, the blowback from Moscow has become ever more serious. With the events in Ukraine in the spring and summer of 2014, the dilemma became acute. The post-1989 Enlargement Options: EU and NATO From the moment the Berlin Wall fell, the issue of enlargement forced itself urgently onto the EU’s agenda. Initially, European political leaders were cautious or even negative. Margaret Thatcher tried hard to avoid even German reunification (the first such enlargement) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • H-Diplo Roundtables, Vol. XIII, No. 12 (2011)
    2011 H-Diplo Roundtable Editors: Thomas Maddux and Diane Labrosse Roundtable Web/Production Editor: George Fujii H-Diplo Roundtable Review www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables Introduction by Thomas Maddux Volume XIII, No. 12 (2011) 7 December 2011 Jonathan Haslam. Russia’s Cold War: From the October Revolution to the Fall of the Wall. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. ISBN: 9780300159974 (cloth, $38.00). Stable URL: http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/PDF/Roundtable-XIII-12.pdf Contents Introduction by Thomas Maddux, California State University, Northridge.............................. 2 Review by Lloyd Gardner, Rutgers University .......................................................................... 7 Review by Jacques Lévesque, Université du Québec à Montréal .......................................... 12 Review by Tom Nichols, U.S. Naval War College .................................................................... 16 Review by Marc Trachtenberg, University of California, Los Angeles .................................... 19 Review by Vladislav Martin Zubok, Temple University .......................................................... 23 Author’s Response by Jonathan Haslam, Cambridge University ............................................ 27 Copyright © 2011 H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for non-profit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author(s), web location, date of publication, H-Diplo, and H-Net: Humanities & Social
    [Show full text]
  • The New Politics of Russia: Interpreting Change
    The new politics of Russia The new politics of Russia Interpreting change ANDREW MONAGHAN Manchester University Press Copyright © Andrew Monaghan 2016 The right of Andrew Monaghan to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Published by Manchester University Press Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for ISBN 978 1 784 99404 4 hardback ISBN 978 1 784 99405 1 paperback ISBN 978 1 784 99763 2 open access First published 2016 An electronic version of this book is also available under a Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC-ND) licence. The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Typeset by Out of House Publishing ‘We’ve moved on’, Senior British official, 2011. ‘I don’t understand why you don’t understand’, Senior Russian official in discussion with Western officials, 2009. ‘We often come up against the failure to understand our position and sometimes even an unwillingness to understand’, Vladimir Putin, ‘Direct line with Vladimir Putin’, 17 April 2014. http://en.kremlin.ru/ events/president/news/20796. ‘One of the biggest delusions of the West has been that Russians are white. If we were black or blue, or dots, the West couldn’t mis- understand Russians so much.
    [Show full text]