The Institute of World Politics

Director of Marine Corps Intelligence Brigadier General Michael S. Groen gave a lecture on "Marine Corps Intelligence and the 'New Normal'" at The Institute of World Politics on October 14, 2014.

This event was the inaugural lecture in the Marine Corps Intelligence Association, Inc. Speaker Series, which will examine current and past challenges of Marine Corps intelligence.

As the crisis in Ukraine continues to dissolve into a bloody stalemate between Kiev and Russian-backed separatists, Russia expert David Satter examined the root causes of this escalating conflict and discussed the engagement within the context of post-Soviet political development in each respective country. His lecture at The Institute of World Politics was sponsored in part by the graduate school's Kosciuszcko Chair of Polish Studies.

Mr. Satter explained that, historically, Ukraine and Russia have enjoyed a close, mutually beneficial political partnership. According to Mr. Satter, this relationship was exemplified by Ukraine's standing within the USSR's rankings of nationalities: its most reliable communist citizens enjoyed a higher status than many others. Furthermore, Russia enjoyed a romantic portrayal in Ukrainian literature. As a result, Mr. Satter argued that the present conflict is the byproduct of artificial Russian militaristic adventurism in order to distract its citizens from the success of Kiev's uprising against a similar corrupt regime.

Ukraine, he noted, has a unique set of political conditions when compared to Russia due to its geographical location and its potential candidacy to enter NATO, the European Union, or both. As such, Mr. Satter contended that Ukraine lives with the possibility of an alternative, one that sets its citizens on a path of Westernization that would improve the livelihood of its citizens. This political psychology is consistently evident within Ukraine and was showcased in the country's uprising against former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

Mr. Satter concluded that while Russian President Vladamir Putin's military adventurism in Ukraine may support his domestic politics in the short term, it will ultimately cripple his standing, as Russian casualties mount and international economic sanctions take their toll.

Therefore, said Mr. Satter, Mr. Putin's efforts to maintain his position's longevity under the false banner of protecting Russian citizens is an unsustainable political maneuver that will endanger his absolute authority over Moscow's politics.

David Satter is a former Moscow Correspondent for the Financial Times of London. He is currently a Fellow at John Hopkins SAIS and is a Senior Fellow with the Hudson Institute.

As the crisis in Ukraine continues to dissolve into a bloody stalemate between Kiev and Russian-backed separatists, Russia expert David Satter examined the root causes of this escalating conflict and discussed the engagement within the context of post-Soviet political development in each respective country. His lecture at The Institute of World Politics was sponsored in part by the graduate school's Kosciuszcko Chair of Polish Studies.

Mr. Satter explained that, historically, Ukraine and Russia have enjoyed a close, mutually beneficial political partnership. According to Mr. Satter, this relationship was exemplified by Ukraine's standing within the USSR's rankings of nationalities: its most reliable communist citizens enjoyed a higher status than many others. Furthermore, Russia enjoyed a romantic portrayal in Ukrainian literature. As a result, Mr. Satter argued that the present conflict is the byproduct of artificial Russian militaristic adventurism in order to distract its citizens from the success of Kiev's uprising against a similar corrupt regime.

Ukraine, he noted, has a unique set of political conditions when compared to Russia due to its geographical location and its potential candidacy to enter NATO, the European Union, or both. As such, Mr. Satter contended that Ukraine lives with the possibility of an alternative, one that sets its citizens on a path of Westernization that would improve the livelihood of its citizens. This political psychology is consistently evident within Ukraine and was showcased in the country's uprising against former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

Mr. Satter concluded that while Russian President Vladamir Putin's military adventurism in Ukraine may support his domestic politics in the short term, it will ultimately cripple his standing, as Russian casualties mount and international economic sanctions take their toll.

Therefore, said Mr. Satter, Mr. Putin's efforts to maintain his position's longevity under the false banner of protecting Russian citizens is an unsustainable political maneuver that will endanger his absolute authority over Moscow's politics.

David Satter is a former Moscow Correspondent for the Financial Times of London. He is currently a Fellow at John Hopkins SAIS and is a Senior Fellow with the Hudson Institute.

As the crisis in Ukraine continues to dissolve into a bloody stalemate between Kiev and Russian-backed separatists, Russia expert David Satter examined the root causes of this escalating conflict and discussed the engagement within the context of post-Soviet political development in each respective country. His lecture at The Institute of World Politics was sponsored in part by the graduate school's Kosciuszcko Chair of Polish Studies.

Mr. Satter explained that, historically, Ukraine and Russia have enjoyed a close, mutually beneficial political partnership. According to Mr. Satter, this relationship was exemplified by Ukraine's standing within the USSR's rankings of nationalities: its most reliable communist citizens enjoyed a higher status than many others. Furthermore, Russia enjoyed a romantic portrayal in Ukrainian literature. As a result, Mr. Satter argued that the present conflict is the byproduct of artificial Russian militaristic adventurism in order to distract its citizens from the success of Kiev's uprising against a similar corrupt regime.

Ukraine, he noted, has a unique set of political conditions when compared to Russia due to its geographical location and its potential candidacy to enter NATO, the European Union, or both. As such, Mr. Satter contended that Ukraine lives with the possibility of an alternative, one that sets its citizens on a path of Westernization that would improve the livelihood of its citizens. This political psychology is consistently evident within Ukraine and was showcased in the country's uprising against former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

Mr. Satter concluded that while Russian President Vladamir Putin's military adventurism in Ukraine may support his domestic politics in the short term, it will ultimately cripple his standing, as Russian casualties mount and international economic sanctions take their toll.

Therefore, said Mr. Satter, Mr. Putin's efforts to maintain his position's longevity under the false banner of protecting Russian citizens is an unsustainable political maneuver that will endanger his absolute authority over Moscow's politics.

David Satter is a former Moscow Correspondent for the Financial Times of London. He is currently a Fellow at John Hopkins SAIS and is a Senior Fellow with the Hudson Institute.

As the crisis in Ukraine continues to dissolve into a bloody stalemate between Kiev and Russian-backed separatists, Russia expert David Satter examined the root causes of this escalating conflict and discussed the engagement within the context of post-Soviet political development in each respective country. His lecture at The Institute of World Politics was sponsored in part by the graduate school's Kosciuszcko Chair of Polish Studies.

Mr. Satter explained that, historically, Ukraine and Russia have enjoyed a close, mutually beneficial political partnership. According to Mr. Satter, this relationship was exemplified by Ukraine's standing within the USSR's rankings of nationalities: its most reliable communist citizens enjoyed a higher status than many others. Furthermore, Russia enjoyed a romantic portrayal in Ukrainian literature. As a result, Mr. Satter argued that the present conflict is the byproduct of artificial Russian militaristic adventurism in order to distract its citizens from the success of Kiev's uprising against a similar corrupt regime.

Ukraine, he noted, has a unique set of political conditions when compared to Russia due to its geographical location and its potential candidacy to enter NATO, the European Union, or both. As such, Mr. Satter contended that Ukraine lives with the possibility of an alternative, one that sets its citizens on a path of Westernization that would improve the livelihood of its citizens. This political psychology is consistently evident within Ukraine and was showcased in the country's uprising against former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

Mr. Satter concluded that while Russian President Vladamir Putin's military adventurism in Ukraine may support his domestic politics in the short term, it will ultimately cripple his standing, as Russian casualties mount and international economic sanctions take their toll.

Therefore, said Mr. Satter, Mr. Putin's efforts to maintain his position's longevity under the false banner of protecting Russian citizens is an unsustainable political maneuver that will endanger his absolute authority over Moscow's politics.

David Satter is a former Moscow Correspondent for the Financial Times of London. He is currently a Fellow at John Hopkins SAIS and is a Senior Fellow with the Hudson Institute.

On September 17, 2014, adjunct professor Dr. Douglas E. Streusand delivered the sixth annual Constitution Day lecture at The Institute of World Politics. Dr. Streusand, an historian and expert in geopolitics who serves as professor of international relations at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, offered evidence from the writings of the American founders that the unique attributes of the US Constitution have shaped the nation's foreign policy and continue to offer important lessons for examining the role of political principles and institutions in US foreign policy.

Dr. Streusand noted that the US Constitution is the basis of US identity; while other nations derive their sense of self from concepts of ethnicity, language, and religion, the unifying thread of US citizenship is adherence at the level of the individual and of society to the Constitution. Similarly, citizens of the United States hold the founding fathers to be analogous to ancestors, regardless of their biological forebears. He claimed that the Constitution presents a recurring theme of realism, practicality, and compromise: while it is easy to make a statement of rights, it is exceptionally difficult to establish a government capable of maintaining them. The implicit concept of reconciling difficult realities and holding realistic expectations is also apparent in the founders' insistence on checks and balances in the bicameral legislature and between the legislature and the executive (a system nearly without international parallel).

The founders' term "experiment" for the US Constitution was no accident, Dr. Streusand said, and the experiment remains ours to maintain. Following from the founders' interest in and insistence upon constitutional balance is the challenge of maintaining freedom during a longstanding state of war: while recognized by the authors of the Federalist Papers, the reality of such a situation and a practical solution to it have fallen to the present generation of statesmen. He noted that the historical record of republics united primarily for purposes of commerce, without the distinctive constitutional traits of the United States, have tended to be both remarkably violent and relatively short-lived. Dr. Streusand concluded by suggesting that the Hamiltonian strain of thought concerning US foreign policy -- a view he characterized as not denying US exceptionalism, but denying that the US is exempt from the exigencies of great power politics -- illustrates the crucial role played by the United States in maintaining a balance of power in the world.

On September 17, 2014, adjunct professor Dr. Douglas E. Streusand delivered the sixth annual Constitution Day lecture at The Institute of World Politics. Dr. Streusand, an historian and expert in geopolitics who serves as professor of international relations at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, offered evidence from the writings of the American founders that the unique attributes of the US Constitution have shaped the nation's foreign policy and continue to offer important lessons for examining the role of political principles and institutions in US foreign policy.

Dr. Streusand noted that the US Constitution is the basis of US identity; while other nations derive their sense of self from concepts of ethnicity, language, and religion, the unifying thread of US citizenship is adherence at the level of the individual and of society to the Constitution. Similarly, citizens of the United States hold the founding fathers to be analogous to ancestors, regardless of their biological forebears. He claimed that the Constitution presents a recurring theme of realism, practicality, and compromise: while it is easy to make a statement of rights, it is exceptionally difficult to establish a government capable of maintaining them. The implicit concept of reconciling difficult realities and holding realistic expectations is also apparent in the founders' insistence on checks and balances in the bicameral legislature and between the legislature and the executive (a system nearly without international parallel).

The founders' term "experiment" for the US Constitution was no accident, Dr. Streusand said, and the experiment remains ours to maintain. Following from the founders' interest in and insistence upon constitutional balance is the challenge of maintaining freedom during a longstanding state of war: while recognized by the authors of the Federalist Papers, the reality of such a situation and a practical solution to it have fallen to the present generation of statesmen. He noted that the historical record of republics united primarily for purposes of commerce, without the distinctive constitutional traits of the United States, have tended to be both remarkably violent and relatively short-lived. Dr. Streusand concluded by suggesting that the Hamiltonian strain of thought concerning US foreign policy -- a view he characterized as not denying US exceptionalism, but denying that the US is exempt from the exigencies of great power politics -- illustrates the crucial role played by the United States in maintaining a balance of power in the world.

On September 17, 2014, adjunct professor Dr. Douglas E. Streusand delivered the sixth annual Constitution Day lecture at The Institute of World Politics. Dr. Streusand, an historian and expert in geopolitics who serves as professor of international relations at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, offered evidence from the writings of the American founders that the unique attributes of the US Constitution have shaped the nation's foreign policy and continue to offer important lessons for examining the role of political principles and institutions in US foreign policy.

Dr. Streusand noted that the US Constitution is the basis of US identity; while other nations derive their sense of self from concepts of ethnicity, language, and religion, the unifying thread of US citizenship is adherence at the level of the individual and of society to the Constitution. Similarly, citizens of the United States hold the founding fathers to be analogous to ancestors, regardless of their biological forebears. He claimed that the Constitution presents a recurring theme of realism, practicality, and compromise: while it is easy to make a statement of rights, it is exceptionally difficult to establish a government capable of maintaining them. The implicit concept of reconciling difficult realities and holding realistic expectations is also apparent in the founders' insistence on checks and balances in the bicameral legislature and between the legislature and the executive (a system nearly without international parallel).

The founders' term "experiment" for the US Constitution was no accident, Dr. Streusand said, and the experiment remains ours to maintain. Following from the founders' interest in and insistence upon constitutional balance is the challenge of maintaining freedom during a longstanding state of war: while recognized by the authors of the Federalist Papers, the reality of such a situation and a practical solution to it have fallen to the present generation of statesmen. He noted that the historical record of republics united primarily for purposes of commerce, without the distinctive constitutional traits of the United States, have tended to be both remarkably violent and relatively short-lived. Dr. Streusand concluded by suggesting that the Hamiltonian strain of thought concerning US foreign policy -- a view he characterized as not denying US exceptionalism, but denying that the US is exempt from the exigencies of great power politics -- illustrates the crucial role played by the United States in maintaining a balance of power in the world.

On September 17, 2014, adjunct professor Dr. Douglas E. Streusand delivered the sixth annual Constitution Day lecture at The Institute of World Politics. Dr. Streusand, an historian and expert in geopolitics who serves as professor of international relations at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, offered evidence from the writings of the American founders that the unique attributes of the US Constitution have shaped the nation's foreign policy and continue to offer important lessons for examining the role of political principles and institutions in US foreign policy.

Dr. Streusand noted that the US Constitution is the basis of US identity; while other nations derive their sense of self from concepts of ethnicity, language, and religion, the unifying thread of US citizenship is adherence at the level of the individual and of society to the Constitution. Similarly, citizens of the United States hold the founding fathers to be analogous to ancestors, regardless of their biological forebears. He claimed that the Constitution presents a recurring theme of realism, practicality, and compromise: while it is easy to make a statement of rights, it is exceptionally difficult to establish a government capable of maintaining them. The implicit concept of reconciling difficult realities and holding realistic expectations is also apparent in the founders' insistence on checks and balances in the bicameral legislature and between the legislature and the executive (a system nearly without international parallel).

The founders' term "experiment" for the US Constitution was no accident, Dr. Streusand said, and the experiment remains ours to maintain. Following from the founders' interest in and insistence upon constitutional balance is the challenge of maintaining freedom during a longstanding state of war: while recognized by the authors of the Federalist Papers, the reality of such a situation and a practical solution to it have fallen to the present generation of statesmen. He noted that the historical record of republics united primarily for purposes of commerce, without the distinctive constitutional traits of the United States, have tended to be both remarkably violent and relatively short-lived. Dr. Streusand concluded by suggesting that the Hamiltonian strain of thought concerning US foreign policy -- a view he characterized as not denying US exceptionalism, but denying that the US is exempt from the exigencies of great power politics -- illustrates the crucial role played by the United States in maintaining a balance of power in the world.

On September 24, 2014, the Kosciuszko Chair of Polish Studies at The Institute of World Politics held a lecture entitled "Anti-Communism and Counterintelligence: Poland, 1918-1944" as part of its series on the Intermarium region.

Dr. Karol Sacewicz spoke about "The Home Army and the Soviets: Polish strategic planning, 1941-1944," followed by Dr. Tomasz Gajownik, who discussed "A Spy Joust: Poland and Lithuania in the interwar period."

Dr.Karol Sacewicz and Dr. Tomasz Gajownik are scholars affiliated with the Department of History and International Relations at the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland.