History & Political Science Students Participate in Model EU Conference

Written by: Kyle Weinsheimer, History and Political Science Adolescent Education Major 

From Thursday March 30th to Saturday April 1st, I attended the SUNY Model European Union Conference on behalf of Daemen University. The conference was held at the SUNY Global Center in New York City, and involved students from around the world, representing delegations of European Union member states. Most days of the conference consisted of debating policies, agreeing on agenda recommendations, and constant communication and compromise from all member states. All students were given roles prior to the conference, from their representative delegation, and were told to stay in character throughout the conference. Me and my colleague, Crystal Buchanan, along with Lisa Pastor from the University of Montreal, represented the delegation of the Kingdom of Denmark. I represented the foreign affairs minister of the delegation, Lars Løkke Rasmussen. Crystal, a political science major at Daemen University, represented finance minister Marie Bjerre, and Lisa represented prime minister Mette Frederiksen. Together as a delegation, we had to commit time and effort to quality research on the policies and ideals of the Danish government, and to make sure our research fit with each other’s. Each representative from each delegation was placed in a functional meeting to debate and come to an agreement on a certain agenda topic. The foreign affairs functional committee, which I was on, was tasked with discussing the EU’s policy towards the People's Republic of China [PRC], which resulted in very contentious and passionate debates. The outcomes of these meetings were very positive, and as time progressed all representatives worked together to reach multiple agreements and amendments to agenda recommendations of the EU. The Foreign Affairs Committee's resolutions included increasing domestic manufacturing in the EU while incentivizing lower industrial developed states of the EU to increase their manufacturing capabilities, creating a task force to increase intelligence on the PRC, and to increase diplomatic relations to ensure trade efficiency with the PRC. As a whole, the conference was very informative and a great opportunity to meet other students who were both very friendly and knowledgeable.

Kyle Weinsheimer (center) and Crystal Buchanan (right) represented the Daemen History & Political Science Department at the Model EU conference in NYC 

Downtown NYC picture taken by Kyle Weinsheimer

In addition to the rewards of participating in such an amazing conference, was the benefit of visiting one of the most beautiful cities in the country, New York City. This was maybe my second or third time seeing the city in person, and I immediately felt the culture shock of being in the economic and social epicenter of the country. The bright lights, the diverse masses of people walking the streets, and the birds that’ll walk right up to you to hang for a little while made me excited to be in such a place. Being in the city that never sleeps was an amazing experience and I am thankful for the opportunity to have made this trip to represent Daemen University. I am also thankful that I got to take this trip with a Harlem native, my co-delegate Crystal, who could show me around the city and crack jokes with me while we walked through the maze of streets to find the SUNY Global Center. In addition, I’d like to thank Dr. Tandon, our faculty advisor for the conference, for meeting with us to make sure we were on track, and to help arrange travel plans for the conference. While it was a lot of work to prepare for this conference, it paid off in the end with the knowledge and experiences I gained from this trip.

 

We look forward to seeing you at this exciting upcoming lecture by Dr. Nayma Qayum. For more information please contact Dr. Aakriti Tandon at atandon@daemen.edu.

Catching Up With Our Alumni – Tori Newman Campbell

Colleges and Universities across the country, Daemen included, are in the midst of recruitment season.  Students are exploring what schools have to offer and considering what they want to study when they enroll.  One of the most frequent questions asked of faculty during recruitment events is, “what can I do with this degree?”  While there is no clear, singular career path our graduates follow, the versatility of this degree is one of its strengths.  A degree in History and/or Political Science prepares students for a variety of careers upon graduation.  We have graduates that have gone on to have successful careers in law, business, education, public service, community development, nonprofit organization, and government, just to name a few.  These graduates have taken their course content knowledge along with the transferable skills they developed in the major and had incredibly successful careers. 

That’s the great thing about these disciplines: they provide a wealth of knowledge of history and/or political science content, but they also equip students with critical thinking skills, the ability to develop and carry out a research project, clear verbal and written communication skills, and the ability to synthesize and meaningfully analyze information.  Our alumni regularly put these skills to use in their chosen career paths.  So, to help answer the questions of “what can I do with a degree in History?” or “what can I do with a degree in Political Science?” we want to highlight some of the interesting and important work our alumni have been up to since graduating. 

Tori Newman Campbell '19, Legislative Coordinator for New York 1199SEIU, a healthcare union

Our inaugural alumna is Tori Newman Campbell, class of 2019.  Tori was a Political Science major who minored in Political Communication and Literature and Composition.  She currently works as the Legislative Coordinator for New York 1199SEIU, a healthcare union.  Below is a discussion I recently had with Tori, highlighting what she has been up to since graduating. 

How have you put your degree to use since graduating?

Every job I have held since graduation was related to my degree. My first job was in an Assembly office in Brooklyn. Although I was there a short time, my background in political science was integral in understanding how the Assembly worked, how laws were written and passed and how the Assemblymember participated in the political process. My next job was at a lobby firm, Bolton St. John’s, and although I was no longer working in an elected office, lobbyists have an enormous effect on the political process as well. Minoring in political communication really helped me at the firm. We often pushed out stories and interacted with the media on behalf of clients and their political goals. Currently, I am at 1199SEIU and as the legislative coordinator, I help the union push for our legislative goals such as increasing the Medicaid reimbursement rate. Much like my first two jobs, my degree has aided me in understanding how we can push for these goals and participate in the political process. Also, my coursework that covered the differences between the local, state, and federal levels of governments has been very helpful since starting at 1199SEIU, because unlike my past two positions, we work with legislators at every level of government. That understanding of how each level works and what each level can do has been very useful when we are setting priorities by office.

What do you like most about your job?

My job allows me the ability to do what I love, while making a difference. Working as 1199SEIU’s legislative coordinator, I get to work with elected officials who believe in our goals of pushing for more resources for our hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities and getting better pay for our members who are healthcare heroes. I love politics and getting to go to Albany to be a part of the political process. Getting to do this while also changing the lives of the healthcare workers we represent is amazing and I don’t know if I would ever be able to get that balance somewhere else.

Do you have a favorite memory from your time at Daemen that you'd like to share?

I have so many great memories from Daemen, from making lifelong friends to having professors who helped push me to be the best I could be both academically and professionally. I think some of my favorite memories were being on student government. I was always a part of student government before I got to Daemen, but being in college was a bit different and I never thought I would join again. My senior year I took a leap and ran for Secretary, and I won! That year, as a student government body, we brought the stories and concerns of students of color on campus to administration. We made sure our voices were heard and that will always be one of my core memories at Daemen.

Is there anything else you would like to share with our current students and fellow alumni?

I’ll close by just saying that Daemen is a great school and I don’t know if I would be where I am without the experiences and push from my professors I got during my time there.

Our department is incredibly thankful to Tori for taking the time to share her experiences with us and we hope you enjoyed learning a bit about what she has been up to, since graduating just four years ago!  If you would like to share your post-graduation experiences with the department, please reach out to the Department Chair, Dr. Jay Wendland at jwendlan@daemen.edu or drop your contact information in the comment section below.  

Women's History Month at Daemen!

March is Women’s History Month! Please join the Women's Studies Program at Daemen to celebrate and explore issues in women's history.

 

 

Suffragetto!  

Tuesday, March 21

11:30 am to 1:00 pm, Alumni Lounge

This recently rediscovered historic board game (from 1909) is based upon British suffragettes’ battle for women’s right to vote. Suffragetto is a strategy game played by two players; suffragettes try to break into Parliament’s House of Commons and confront police who are trying to disrupt a suffrage meeting in Albert Hall while protecting the House of Commons from the invading women. Learn about movements to secure the right to vote while playing this historic game. Co-sponsored by Daemen’s Women’s Studies Program and the Center for Diversity & Inclusion. Refreshments are included. 

  

 

“Hidden Figures”  

Thursday, March 23 

4:00 to 7:00 pm, RIC120

The 2016 film, headlined by Octavia Spencer, Taraji P. Henson, and Janelle Monae, traces the stories of three Black female mathematicians, human “computers” whose work for NASA was integral to the success of the US space program. After the film, Dr. Intisar Hibschweiller (Professor of Mathematics) and Dr. Diane Ramos (Chair of Natural Science Department) will discuss women’s role in STEM fields, including challenges and opportunities for women today. Co-sponsored by Daemen’s Women’s Studies Program and the Center for Diversity & Inclusion. Refreshments are included. 

 

“Gendered Norms and Women's Access to the Law in Rural Bangladesh” 

Wednesday, March 29

1:25-2:20pm, DS336 

Lecture by Dr. Nayma Qayum, the author of Village Ties: Women, NGOs, and Informal Institutions in Rural Bangladesh. Qayum will explain how rural Bangladeshi women seek to end practices such as child marriage, dowry abuse, and intimate partner violence, which persist although they have been outlawed. Qayum is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Global and International Studies at Manhattanville College. This event, part of the History & Politics Event Series, is also co-sponsored by Daemen’s Global Studies program, Women’s Studies program, and the Center for Diversity & Inclusion. 

 

 

“Gaslight” 

Friday, March 31

5:00-7:30 pm, RIC120

Are you curious about “gaslighting,” Merriam-Webster’s 2022 Word of the Year? In this classic 1944 thriller, Ingrid Bergman plays a newlywed whose husband manipulates her into distrusting her own experiences, perceptions, and memories (“gaslighting” her). Come for the film and stay for the discussion, with commentary and discussion led by Dr. Shirley Peterson, emeritus Professor of English. Co-sponsored by Daemen’s Women’s Studies Program and the Center for Diversity & Inclusion. Refreshments are included. 

 

 

 

**All events are free and open to the public. Please contact Dr. Penny Messinger, director of the Women's Studies Program, for more information** 

 

Update:

The American Bar Association (ABA) house of delegates rejected the elimination of the LSAT (or GRE option) as a requirement for law school admissions at its February 2023 meeting. The rationale for maintaining the entrance exam was the need to ensure that students admitted to law school are ready to succeed. While the ABA heard concerns about the LSAT as a barrier to admission, it also heard counter-concerns that its elimination would exacerbate the problems by replacing the LAST with more biased, alternative admission criteria (like reliance on grade point average). The issue is likely to be revisited in the future. But for now, aspiring law students must take either the LSAT or GRE (if authorized by the law school) as an entrance exam requirement of admission. 

Law School Trends to Watch – the End of the LSAT Requirement?

The Law School Admission Test (LSAT)—an exam long-required for admission into law school—may soon be phased out. The American Bar Association’s accrediting council, comprised of lawyers, law school faculty and admissions professionals, voted 15-1 on November 18, 2022, to drop the requirement that law school applicants take the standardized admission exam effective for the Fall 2025 admission cycle. The decision still needs to be finally ratified by the full ABA delegation at its February 2024 meeting, and individual law schools would be allowed to still require the LSAT (or some form of admission test like the GRE) as a requirement for admission. It is not clear yet just how many law schools are likely to make the LSAT optional only as part of their admissions requirements.

Why the Change?

The LSAT does not test content or legal knowledge but rather is a skills-based exam that test logical reasoning, reading comprehension, and writing abilities. Performance on the LSAT exam has been correlated with law school success—and thus, has been viewed as a strong measure of aptitude for the legal profession and a predictor for law school and bar-passage success. Attending law school is expensive and graduates are not allowed to practice law without passing state bar (or licensure) examinations upon graduation. The LSAT, in other words, was a gatekeeping mechanism to ensure that students entering law school had the requisite ability and skills to succeed in the legal profession.

The gatekeeping function of the LSAT, however, also served as a barrier for many aspiring law students. Studying for the exam is time consuming and commercial preparation courses are costly. For some prospective law students, the cost of the entrance exam and credential assembly services provided by the Law School Admission Council (LSAC)—the nonprofit corporation which administers the LSAT—were prohibitive. The LSAC provided fee waivers, but the application criteria were stringent and the process less than easy.

Moreover, there was mounting evidence that the LSAT unfairly discriminated against poor and minority students who tend to perform more poorly on the exam. While law schools consider a range of admissions factors, including grade point averages, letters of recommendation, and extra or co-curricular experiences—the LSAT score plays a disproportionate role in admissions decisions, particularly at the higher ranked law schools.

Disabled students also saw the LSAT as posing barriers. While students with disabilities can qualify for accommodations when taking the LSAT, the use of accommodations is noted in their application, discouraging some students from utilizing legitimate accommodations. Moreover, the logic games—a section on the exam with which many students most struggle—typically require the use of schematics and visualizations to solve more readily—a factor that substantially impacted those with vision impairment. Because of this, the LSAC already had plans to revise or phase out the logic games as part of a legal settlement following a challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Michigan Person with Disabilities Civil Right Act.

 
And then along came the COVID pandemic which disrupted the traditional in-person, limited administration of the LSAT. The pandemic required the LSAC to move to a more-frequently offered LSAT-flex option wherein the exam could be taken online under monitored conditions. The transition to online-testing was often problematic, resulting in frequent complaints from students over proctoring, privacy, and technology issues. The transition back to in-person testing and loss of administrative flexibility has been equally challenging.

Another blow to the LSAT was dealt when an increasing number of law schools announced that they would accept the Graduate Records Examination (GRE) in place of the LSAT. The switch to the GRE option allowed law schools to diversify their applicant pool and tap into the well of students who were undecided between law and graduate school as a potential career pathway. The ABA’s formal approval of the GRE option as consistent with ABA standards opened the floodgates, so that 100+ of the 185 or so accredited law schools now accept the GRE in place of the LSAT.

Is LSAT-optional Ultimately a Good Thing?

Not everyone is convinced that elimination of the LSAT as an admission requirement is ultimately a good thing. Indeed, many pre-law advisor associations were split on their recommendations when asked by the ABA for comment on the proposed change. Why are some law school professionals concerned? First, we can anticipate that the elimination of the LSAT as a requirement is likely to increase the number of applications submitted in the admission cycle. That means that that law schools may have a more difficult task in admissions decisions, and are losing a data-point that did have predictive value of law school success. The concern is that law schools may admit more students who are not fully prepared for the rigors of law school or the profession.

There are also concerns about the overall saturation of the legal market in terms of the number of law schools and the number of graduates that law schools collectively produce. The concern is that the higher-ranked law schools will continue to require the LSAT while struggling institutions may go the optional route, thereby unintentionally exacerbating race, gender, and economic inequalities that the elimination of the LSAT requirement was intended to alleviate. While admissions might be more readily gained under LSAT-optional criteria, the advantage may be offset by the increased number of applicants and the diminished value or reputation of the institution if graduation completion, bar passage, or employment rates fall. Some critics of the LSAT-optional decision fear that waiving the exam as a gatekeeping mechanism may lead more students to amass on law school debt for a degree that they cannot successfully complete.

What Does this Change Mean For You?

Many students will undoubtedly rejoice at the prospect of the LSAT being eliminated as a required admission criterion for law school. But there is an argument that taking the LSAT exam provides an applicant with a significant advantage relative to those relying on GRE scores or no entrance exam at all. Admissions committees, in other words, may still favor students who take and perform well on the LSAT. This means that, as a prospective law student, you will want to carefully consider whether the time and expense of taking the LSAT, the GRE, or no admissions test at all, makes the most sense for your situation. That is, will the time and effort of taking the LSAT increase the probability of your admission to a law school of choice?

It also means that you should be even more thoughtful about where you apply and should not let the test requirement be the sole determinant of your choices. That is, applying to an LSAT optional as opposed to an LSAT-is-still-required-by-this-institution law school may have ramifications for your chances at acceptance and the overall value of your law degree. In some cases, having a strong grade point average, resume, and great letters, may be strengthened (or mitigated) by your decision to take the LSAT. One thing that is unlikely to change—if you do take the LSAT exam, the law schools to which you apply will be able to see your scores. So, it is still the case that you should not take the LSAT without adequate preparation. And you should plan on taking it only once—that is, never take the LSAT cold or treat the actual exam like a practice exam.

It is important to remember that getting into law school is only the first step to a successful legal career. Once admitted you also need to graduate and graduate with a record that is likely to ensure your success in the profession. That means, you need the skill sets to do well in courses, earn decent grades in law school, and be adequately prepared to pass the state bar exam. For this reason, your undergraduate preparation and major are likely to be more important than ever in insuring that you have the requisite writing, reading, and logic skills beyond foundational content knowledge or general familiarity with legal system that are necessary.

Finally, it should be cautioned that just because the application process might seem less daunting without the dreaded LSAT, the decision to attend law school should not be made lightly or as a “let’s just see,” or default because you do not know what else to do upon graduation option. While law degrees are often advertised as versatile degrees with which one can do “most anything,” attending law school is a major commitment of time and money that is primarily intended to prepare one for the practice of law. As you think about career pathways, take time to explore what the preferred terminal degree is for the profession of your interest.

Annual Departmental Banquet Returns!

The History and Political Science departmental banquet, held annually to celebrate our graduating seniors, is returning this year after a two-year hiatus due to the Covid-19 pandemic!  We invite you to join us on Friday May 6 at 5:00pm  in Alumni Lounge.  There is no cost - just come celebrate our graduates, hear from fellow alumni, and connect with our current faculty.  We hope to see you there! 

 

In Russo-Ukraine War, India is between a Rock and a Hard Place

The Russo-Ukrainian war has drawn a surprisingly subdued response from India despite its habitual support of international law and institutions. Aakriti Tandon and Michael O. Slobodchikoff, authors of the forthcoming India as Kingmaker, analyze the institutionalized cooperation between India and Russia vs the ad hoc cooperation between India and the United States to explain why.

Most democratic countries, especially in the West, have been quick to condemn Russia’s invasion into sovereign Ukrainian territory. Most powerful Western states have also applied wide-ranging sanctions against Russian elites, including politicians and oligarchs.

However, as a rising power that aspires for major power status, including a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, India has been surprisingly quiet on the issue of Russia’s invasion of sovereign Ukrainian territory. India has also repeatedly refrained from condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine, in a near-repeat of its stance in 2014 during the Crimean crisis.

Historically, India has been a firm believer in, and a leader of, the Non-aligned movement. Non-alignment has served India well by sparing it from being in the line of direct fire as the two superpowers clashed on the global stage via proxy wars during the Cold War period. India’s goal in 1947 was to continue to develop economically and to strengthen its democracy as well as cement its newfound independence.

India’s goals in 2022 are rather different. It aspires to great power status regionally as well as globally. It is a nuclear power state, one of the ten largest economies in the world, a huge market for international goods, and has a young, and well-educated workforce leading the information technology sector. The Indian economy is open and well-integrated into the global economy and growing at a fast pace. India participates in international institutions and is generally an adherent of rules and norms. As the largest democracy in the world, it has tried to balance its identity as a developing country along with meeting the challenges of the international system, including being one of the largest providers of peacekeeping troops to the United Nations.

India as Kingmaker

As such, we argue that India is in the position to serve as Kingmaker. Given these advantages, India can help shape the future international order by tilting towards either status quo powers such as the United States and its close allies including the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan or towards the revisionist powers such as China, Russia and Iran.

In the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, India refrained from criticizing Russia’s violation of international law and norms. In the prelude to the current conflict, India chose to abstain from a critical vote at the United Nations Security Council meeting that would allow the organization to address the crisis and provide a forum for member states to criticize Russia’s actions towards Ukraine. India’s abstention was praised by Russia. This may appear perplexing because India is a democratic state and generally a strong proponent of international law and institutions. While a nuclear power, India has demonstrated restraint in its interactions within the region, where border disputes have often escalated to militarized disputes and war (this includes the India – Pakistan rivalry, one of the most long lasting and intense rivalries in the international system).

In addition to this, India and the United States have been forging closer ties with each other ever since the thawing of their bilateral ties began with the signing of the 2005 nuclear power treaty. Indo-American ties continued to improve exponentially from the Bush, to the Obama, to the Trump administration. India remains a critical ally for the United States in its quest to balance the rise of Chinese power and dominance in Asia and beyond. India has both the ability as well as the intention to counter China’s power and aggression in the region. India and the United States are also natural allies, given that both countries share a commitment to democracy, free market capitalism as well as international law and institutions.

This begs the question as to why has India chosen to remain silent on an issue that has roiled up the entire international community? Why has Modi refused to criticise Putin’s aggression towards Ukraine?

Institutionalized vs Ad Hoc Cooperation and India’s Present Stance

A systematic study of India’s bilateral ties with major power states including the United States, Russia, China as well as the European Union (including the United Kingdom, France and Germany) suggests that Indo-Russian ties are the most deeply institutionalized. By continuing to link new treaties with former treaties, India and Russia have created an elaborate network of nested treaties. The advantage of nesting or linking treaties are several. If a state violates a treaty that is linked to or nested within several other landmark treaties negotiated in the past, they are violating not only a single standalone treaty but all the other treaties that are directly linked to the treaty that is being violated. This increases the scope of violation and thereby also increases the costs of violating a single treaty. Slobodchikoff has argued that states are less likely to violate treaties when they are deeply linked to several other treaties.

In addition to this, when states choose to link treaties to create a network, they are strengthening the bilateral relationship by institutionalizing the cooperation. The higher the level of institutionalization in the relationship, the stronger the bilateral relationship. Thus, the level of institutionalization serves as a proxy measure of the strength and stability of the bilateral ties between two states in the international system. We have previously discussed the value of using treaty networks to determine the strength of a bilateral relationship here.

In examining India’s bilateral ties with the above-mentioned major power states, we find that the Indo-Russian relationship has a higher level of institutionalization than the Indo-American relationship. In fact, the Indo-Russian relationship has the highest level of institutionalization as compared to all other bilateral relationships that are examined in this research. The Indo-Russian bilateral treaty ties are the only one to reach the level of “institutionalized cooperation”. This means that India and Russia have chosen to nurture and cement their bilateral ties thereby making them more stable and durable. This relationship is unlikely to be challenged by the current crisis in Ukraine.

 

 

Figure 1: Network Map of Bilateral Treaties Between India and Russia from 1947-2017

In addition to this, even though the Indo-American bilateral ties have made dramatic progress in the last two decades, they remains weakly institutionalized. Most treaties in the Indo-American relationship (and there are fewer compared to the other bilateral relationships) are standalone treaties leading to what we term “ad hoc cooperation”. This suggests that while India and the United States are engaging in cooperation on certain issues, this has not led to an effort to create a strong foundation for cooperation. There are no lodestone treaties in the Indo-American relationship which can serve as the basis for an overall cooperative relationship. Cooperation in the Indo-American dyad is limited to certain issue areas, unlike the cooperation in the Indo-Russian dyad which spans multiple issue areas that are all interconnected.

 

Figure 2: Network Map of All Bilateral Treaties Between India and the USA from 1947– 2017

This systematic analysis of India’s bilateral treaties with major power states suggests that the Indo-Russian relationship is the strongest amongst all the bilateral ties examined in the book. Indo-Russian cooperation spans several issue areas; it has been nurtured by different leaders and governments in their respective countries during the past century. As a result, India is unlikely to take an overtly critical approach against Russian aggression in Ukraine. However, given India’s commitment to the international principles of multilateralism, non-interference and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, it may continue to pay lip service to the idea of peaceful resolution of the dispute.

Diplomats and scholars alike are urging India to take a firm stand, to rise to the occasion and to condemn the atrocities being committed by Russia against Ukrainians. The United States has made it clear that any country that continues to maintain economic ties and trade relations with Russia will be tainted by association. In the past the Trump administration granted India a waiver to continue to trade with Iran (which has also been placed under heavy sanctions due to its violation of the US – Iran nuclear treaty). It remains to be seen if the United States will be able to pressurize India to take a stand against Russia by publicly condemning their actions in Ukraine as well as sever close economic ties. Our research suggests that both scenarios are unlikely to happen.

If the United States wants to ensure India’s support and cooperation against revisionist states such as Russia, they will have to work to build an institutionalized cooperative relationship with India.

This will require cultivating close ties in various areas and not treating India as a junior partner in Asia, that is only useful to balance the rise of China.

This article was also published on the London School of Economic's South Asia Blog which can be accessed here.

About the author

Aakriti Tandon

Aakriti Tandon is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Daemen College, Amherst NY. She is an expert on international institutions, international security as well as Indian foreign security policy. She has published several articles on India's bilateral relations with major power states such as the United States as well as Russia, and India's bilateral ties with neighboring states such as Pakistan. She (along with co-author Michael O. Slobodchikoff) edited a special volume of The Roundtable: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs on the topic of Security in South Asia. Their upcoming book is titled India as Kingmaker: Status Quo or Revisionist Power (University of Michigan Press).

Michael O. Slobodchikoff

Michael O. Slobodchikoff is an expert on Russian relations with post-Soviet states. He has published many books on this topic. His most recent book is titled The Challenge to NATO: Global Security and the Atlantic Alliance, published in 2021, and co-authored with G. Doug Davis and Brandon Stewart. He is also the editor of the Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Book Series through Lexington Books. Dr Slobodchikoff specializes in relations between Russia and the former Soviet states, international conflict and peace, security, and comparative politics. He has often served as an analyst on Russian relations with Ukraine for BBC World News.