There is little about the Western Balkans that its inhabitants agree on. Land, language, religion and belonging are all contested between Serbs, Bosnians, Croatians and Albanians, who live beside one another, next to borders they don’t always recognise. One such group is the Kosovo Serbs; a largely Orthodox Christian group who live in Kosovo but identify with and are loyal to Serbia, often putting them at odds with the Albanian Muslim majority. 

For centuries, the Serbs have seen Kosovo as their homeland, and see the replacement- their word, not mine- of Serbs in the region by Albanian Muslims as an example of a regional- and since the wars of the 1990s, international- conspiracy against Serbia. It is the Kosovo Serbs, their beliefs and grievances, that are the subject of today’s conversation.

My guest for this conversation is Bojan Elek, a researcher at the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, a Serbian think tank dedicated to covering goings-on in the Western Balkans. Bojan himself is Serb but was born in Kosovo, so his insights on this minority group not always treated well by their Albanian neighbours were fascinating to hear. 

Anwar Sadat was the President of Egypt between 1970 and his assassination in 1981. Sadat changed Egypt utterly during his time in power, recognising Israel and aligning with the US following the anti-colonial rule of Nasser.

The about-turns made by Sadat during his 11-year presidency make him one of the post-1945 World’s most controversial figures, and he ultimately paid for his cosying up to Israel with his life. But did his actions make Egypt more stable and more prosperous? This is the question at the heart of today's episode.

My guest for today’s conversation is Steven Cook. Steven is a senior fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and he contributes regularly to publications such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He is also the author of many books, including False Dawn: Protest, Democracy and Violence in the New Middle East, released in 2017. 

Charles Haughey served as Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland three times between 1979 and 1992.  His career, saddled by accusations of helping the IRA, extraordinary financial irregularities and infidelity would make Donald Trump flush an even darker orange.

Like Boris Johnson, Haughey is a demonstration that charm, wit and immense intelligence count for little in politics without strong moral and ethical foundations.

My guest for this conversation is Gary Murphy. Gary is associate professor of government and Head of the School of Law at Dublin City University. In 2014, he was asked by Haughey’s son Sean to write a biography of his father- the result was Gary’s 2021 book, simply titled Haughey. 

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was the leader of Pakistan from 1971 until 1977. Zulfikar took power in Pakistan at one of the lowest points in its history; the secession of East Pakistan in 1971, now Bangladesh, had called into question the basic concept on which Pakistan had been founded that the Muslim peoples of South Asia should live in one country. 

Bhutto, a Western educated leftist, sought to reinvigorate his bruised Islamic country by uniting it around socialism. The fact that he only ruled Pakistan for five and a half years should probably give you an idea as to how this went, with his government struggling to sidestep the powerful influences of the military and the tribal kinships. The result was a coup in 1977, Bhutto’s execution two years later, and 12 years of military rule. 

My guest for this conversation is Raza Rumi, a Pakistani journalist and public policy analyst based in the United States. Our conversation about Bhutto, encapsulating India, East Pakistan, the army and the kinships builds to a central question: can anyone govern Pakistan? 

Nursultan Nazarbayev served as President of Kazakhstan from 1991 until 2019. He remained a backseat driver until last year, when Kazakhstan’s biggest protests in decades finally put an end to Nazarbayev’s 35-year rule.

Nazarbayev oversaw his country’s transition to independence and capitalism, and established strong relations with the United States and China. Temporarily at least, he established some semblance of order over a country many denied was coherent enough to survive, given that ethnic Russians actually outnumbered Kazakhs at the country’s founding.

On the other hand, Nazarbayev had a record in elections most dictators can only dream of, winning his last election with 98% of the vote, and jailing and murdering opposition figures with increasing passion as his rule progressed. He also maintained close relations with Russia, a friendship that has now come under unprecedented strain following Russia’s invasion of another one of its neighbours.

My guest for this episode is Joanna Lillis. Joanna is a British journalist who has lived in Kazakhstan since 2005, and writes principally for The Economist and Eurasianet. Joanna is also the author of recently published Dark Shadows, which examines Kazakhstan’s independent history. 

Kim Campbell served as prime minister of Canada for just 132 days in 1993, when she led her Progressive Conservative Party to catastrophic defeat in an election; the governing party won just two seats at the 1993 election. 

Campbell's premiership bears some superficial resemblances with that of Liz Truss time in charge of the UK, and the British Conservatives seem set for a terrible election defeat at the next election here. What can they learn from Campbell's experience?

My guest for today's episode is Daniel Beland, a political scientist who works at McGill University in Montreal. 

Thaksin Shinawatra served as prime minister of Thailand from 2001 until 2006. For a while, Thaksin looked to be the future of Thai politics during the final years of the ageing King Rama IX. However, the military, seeing Thaksin as a threat to the future of the monarchy, instigated a coup against Thaksin’s government in September 2006.

Whilst Thailand’s civilian government is technically able to govern without interference from the monarchy, Thai politics actually resembles a constant tussle between the monarchy, backed up by the army, and the civilian government. Thaksin is probably the most significant figure on the civilian government side of that equation during the 21st century so far.

Whilst the story of a democratically elected leader overthrown by the military usually sees that leader painted in a heroic light, Thaksin was a complex and imperfect character, embroiling himself in scandals related to his former business career. Though living in self-imposed exile in Dubai, he still towers over Thailand’s political system 17 years after being deposed, suggesting a self-importance often observed among politicians. It’s not hard to conclude it might be time for Thaksin to leave Thai politics be. Whether he does or not, Thai politics looks set for a turbulent future, amid the unpopular reign of a new King, and the most fervent anti-monarchy protests the country has ever seen.

Few people are better placed to speak to all this than my guest today. Pavin Chachavalpongpun (@PavinKyoto) is a Thai academic who wrote a book about Thaksin, Reinventing Thailand: Thaksin and his Foreign Policy. He is also something of a marked man in the eyes of the Thai monarchy, having been the victim of a home invasion in his apartment in 2019, during which he was attacked by a supporter of the monarchy. As well as Thaksin’s career and legacy, we discuss Thailand’s experience of colonisation, or lack thereof, and whether this has actually turned out to be to the country's advantage. 

Juan Perón served as the President of Argentina between 1946 and 1955, and again for nine months just before his death in 1974. Despite dying nearly half a century ago, he still largely defines Argentine political discourse, and even many policy debates still revolve around whether single policies are sufficiently "peronist".

This bizarre state of affairs is made stranger still by Perón's distinctly mixed record as leader, presiding over a considerable fall in Argentina's economic prospects. The question of why this is the case is the central topic of today's episode.

My guest for this conversation is Jill Hedges, who works as Deputy Director of Analysis at Oxford Analytica, a geopolitical advisory firm. Jill is the author of various books about Argentina, including Juan Perón: The Life of the People’s Colonel. 

In this wide ranging conversation, we also discuss the importance of the military in Argentine politics, the truth about Argentina’s harbouring of members of the European far-right after World War II, and the central role of football in Argentine culture. 

In an end-of-year special, I invited back three of my guests from 2022 to discuss new developments in their areas of interest: the COVID protests in China (Aaron Friedberg), the Scholz chancellorship in Germany (Oliver Moody), and the new ceasefire in Ethiopia (Martin Plaut).

Out of these discussions emerges a common thread that the World is in a state of real flux heading into the New Year. The prospect of the USA, China and Russia simultaneously struggling likely means fewer conflict resolutions, longer downturns and higher prices. With recession hammering developed and developing economies, and inflation throwing question marks over the extent of Western resolve in Ukraine, the instability of recent years seems unlikely to subside in 2023. 

In other words... good luck!

Nikita Khrushchev was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1953 until 1964.

Unexpectedly coming to power after the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev inherited a country victorious in World War II and possibly on the road to world domination, but which had also been ripped apart by decades of terror and purges. Khrushchev, in an act of immense political courage, derided Stalinism and closed many of Stalin’s labour camps, undeniably making the Soviet Union a more tolerable place to live. Whilst the 1950s saw technological advances and foreign policy successes, Khrushchev’s detractors, always uneasy about destalinisation, gained greater traction as Khrushchev’s policies lost momentum in the early 60s, and they successfully deposed him in 1964. 

This fate puts Khrushchev in the company of a number of Russian leaders who also attempted to reform the state they inherited, but lost control of the situation and lost power. Granted, Khrushchev didn’t meet the same fate as the reformist Tsar Alexander II, who was assassinated in 1881, but his time in charge of the Soviet Union is generally regarded a truncated failure. In a time when a reactionary Russian leader is faltering, Khrushchev’s cautious reforming instincts might well resurface in modern Russia quite soon. That future reformer, be they young or old, close to Putin or unknown to him entirely, must learn the lessons of Khrushchev’s leadership, if he or she- probably he, if Russian leaders are anything to go by- is to be successful. 

My guest for this conversation is Alex Kokcharov, a London-based Risk analyst who covers events related to Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. We discussed Khrushchev’s sidestepping of Stalin’s purges in the 1930s- a fine achievement, considering the calibre of some of those who did not manage to do this- his experiences organising the Russian war effort at Stalingrad and Kursk, and whether Khrushchev’s approach to politics, more contemplative and compromising than his predecessor- prepared him well for his time at the top of the Soviet hierarchy.