Nine years ago, I enrolled in the Master’s program in Russia, Eurasia, and Eastern Europe Studies from Columbia’s @HarrimanInst.
At the time, I remember conversations about whether we should even have a Russia studies program. (Thankfully, we still do!)
At the time, I remember conversations about whether we should even have a Russia studies program. (Thankfully, we still do!)
One of the best courses there was called “Ukrainian Foreign Policy.” There were three of us total (plus @Argemino!) in the fall of 2013.
Each week, we met to dissect the latest on Yanukovych’s government, Orange Revolution legacies, the potential EU Association Agreement, etc.
Each week, we met to dissect the latest on Yanukovych’s government, Orange Revolution legacies, the potential EU Association Agreement, etc.
And each week, things got slowly less hopeful. Yanukovych started to stall. The potential for signing the Association Agreement slowly got further and further away.
It was a bit like watching a slow-motion car crash, week in, week out.
It was a bit like watching a slow-motion car crash, week in, week out.
The course ended before EuroMaidan, and everything—the invasion, the war, the sanctions, the 2016 interference, more sanctions, Trump’s first impeachment, and now this—that followed.
And that was only one course, in addition to everything else.
And that was only one course, in addition to everything else.
Anyway, this thread isn’t much more than an appreciation for @HarrimanInst. My work on kleptocracy, foreign influence, and trans-national money laundering stems directly from my time there.
And it’s a reminder of why regional studies programs remain so ludicrously important.
And it’s a reminder of why regional studies programs remain so ludicrously important.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
