Catholic schools are closing their doors all across America, leaving future generations with nowhere to turn for the high-quality academics and values-based education so many families are seeking. The number of students attending Catholic schools in the US fell from about 5.2 million in 1965 to around two million in 2008.
Pioneer Institute believes these schools are worth preserving. For over a decade, we have raised our voice in support of these excellent academic options, and tools such as tax credit scholarships that would enable more families to attend.
Pioneer has held public forums, published research on the benefits of Catholic education, on successful models such as Cristo Rey, and on policy changes that would stop the Massachusetts education department from depriving religious school students of special needs services and school nurses. The Institute has also convened key stakeholders, appeared in local and national press, filed amicus briefs, produced a feature a documentary film, and much more.
This week on JobMakers, host Denzil Mohammed talks with Dr. Avak Kahvejian, an inventor, entrepreneur and CEO as well as general partner at Flagship Pioneering, a life sciences venture capital company in Cambridge, Massachusetts. For generations, his family was forced to flee from genocide in what was then Armenia (now eastern Turkey), to Syria, Lebanon, and then to Montreal, Canada, via the U.K., and finally, by choice, to Boston. His risk-taking, persistence, and ambition drove him to a place where people from all over the world come to innovate, ideate, and create: the United States. America has always attracted this kind of person, and that’s what has made it into the powerhouse it is today. As Avak cautions, if that well were to run dry, the result would be disastrous for all of us, as you’ll learn in this week’s JobMakers.
Guest
Avak Kahvejian, Ph.D. is a life sciences inventor, entrepreneur, and CEO. Since 2011, he has been a partner at Flagship Pioneering, where he leads a team to invent and launch new therapeutic platforms. His work has led to the creation of multiple high-value public and private companies including Seres Therapeutics; Rubius Therapeutics; Codiak BioSciences; Cygnal Therapeutics; Ring Therapeutice; Cellarity; Laronde; and Generate Biomedicines. Prior to Flagship, Avak was Vice President of Business Development at Helicos BioSciences, where he developed and commercialized the world’s first single molecule DNA sequencer. He serves on the board of the International Institute of New England, an institution which creates opportunities for refugees and immigrants to succeed through resettlement, education, career advancement and pathways to citizenship. From 2014 to 2020, he served on the board of the Canadian Entrepreneurs of New England, an organization dedicated to assisting Canadian entrepreneurs build ties with the Boston life sciences and technology ecosystems. Avak earned his Ph.D. and B.Sc. in Biochemistry from McGill University in Montreal, Canada.
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
Denzil Mohammed:
I’m Denzil Mohammed. Welcome to Jobmakers.
Denzil Mohammed:
The kinds of people who choose to migrate are typically a special kind of people, risk taking ambitious determined for those who are forced to migrate. These qualities are really forced upon them as they have no choice, but take the risk to make something of themselves, what results you can find in countries like the United States, Canada and Germany, places where people migrate to robust economies, hubs of innovation, inherently entrepreneurial for Dr. Avak Kahvejian, an inventor, entrepreneur and CEO, as well as general partner at flagship pioneering, a life sciences venture capital company, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he’s seen both types of migration and both kinds of risk taking success for generations. He Armenian family was forced to move from what was then Armenia now, Eastern Turkey to Syria, to flee genocide then to Lebanon, then to Montreal Canada, by the UK fleeing civil war. And finally, by choice to Boston, that risk taking persistence and ambition drove him to a place where people from all over the world could come to innovate, ideate and create the United States. This country has always attracted this kind of person making it into the powerhouse it is today. And so of our cautions, if that well were to run dry, the result would be disastrous for all of us. As you learn in this week’s Jobmakers. Avak Kahvejian,
Denzil Mohammed:
A general partner at Flagship Pioneering, welcome to the Jobmakers podcast. How are you?
Avak Kahvejian:
Good, thank you for having me.
Denzil Mohammed:
So tell me a little bit about the work that you do.
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, I work at Flagship Pioneering, which is a company creation firm. It’s an innovation firm and we focus primarily on the life sciences in terms of making new biotechnology companies that are going to develop new therapies or new solutions for sustainability. Whether that’s in the nutrition space or the agricultural space. I lead a team here at, at Flagship that is mandated to I idea and invent new platform technologies. And those platform technologies become the basis for a new, and they develop products over time. And I’ve been doing this now for 10 years.
Denzil Mohammed:
So give us a sense of some of the companies that you’ve helped bring to market.
Avak Kahvejian:
So they are quite diverse. Over the years, I’ve had the pleasure and honor of working on some really cool companies. Some that your audience may know, and some of course, that they will, they’ve never heard of. The, one of the first projects that I got involved with was Moderna. And as now you all know they ended up creating one of the best and, and only vaccines for the, the coronavirus. So that’s one example of a platform technology, meaning a technology that can be used for many, many different things, having the ability in one company to design it, to make it, to apply it, and then to think about different ways of using it is really the model. It’s the archetype of, of what we do. And these are more, more or less chronological is Rubus a company that had the, to make red blood cells in a lab.
Avak Kahvejian:
So kind of like in a factory and to make them therapeutic, to make them medicinal. And so how can you grow artificial quote, unquote, blood in a, in a, in a VAT, but also endow the blood with the therapeutic properties. And you can imagine there’s a range of things you can do with that. And they have trials now for combating cancer. And those trials are, are, are really underway as we speak and a variety of other companies of that ilk, new gene therapies, new nucleic acid therapies like, like Moderna and and, and new discovery platforms that are going to generate the next wave of, of medicinal products.
Denzil Mohammed:
That is absolutely remarkable. And might I add that the, the teams that you’re talking about that form, these companies are extremely diverse and you’re an immigrant from Canada and they’re immigrants all around in this space. You’ve also been active in the nonprofit space, the Canadian entrepreneurs in new of new England, the St. Stephens Armenian elementary school. And much of this clearly is connected to your family’s history of migration. Can you walk us through your family’s journey, starting with your at grandparents?
Avak Kahvejian:
Yeah, so I don’t have all the dates on hand, but in, during the, the genocide that the Turks perpetrated against the Armenians in 1915, my family was very well established in the Western Armenia or what is known as Eastern Turkey in a town called now I think it’s called Sanliurfa, and they were a prominent family there owned a lot of property and, and farmland and during the genocide they had to escape the, the, in, during the, the genocide, the, the mandate was for the Turkish army to either either kill or forced migrate Armenians out of those territories. But what happened was it caused a dispersion of Armenians across the world. My family didn’t go very far. They went to Syria and established themselves there. And then from Syria migrated to Beirut Lebanon and Beirut as you may know, was a, was a microcosm of many, many different cultures and religions, some very extreme differences in terms of Christianity and Islam, all coexisting together. And my parents were born in Beru and I was born in Beru. I had the unfortunate luck, I guess, of being born at the beginning of the civil war there where things started to really fall apart. And that was in 1975, practically carrying me out in a hand basket. We, we moved to London, England, and then as a stopover, and then eventually to Montreal Canada to, to establish ourselves there.
Denzil Mohammed:
And then you ended up here, luckily not by by force, but by choice for the first time in your family’s history. I mean, that’s absolutely remarkable. And these are the stories that, that, you know, people on the street American go, Americans just don’t know that that fall behind you as an entrepreneur, you as an immigrant. So I saw a video of you on YouTube, where you said an immigrant and an entrepreneur are very much the same. Can you explain that to our American audience?
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, yeah, I think there are, are elements of, of starting a company, having an idea, building that company that are very much akin to moving to a new land and trying to essentially find oneself and establish oneself in, in, in that new land. And so as think those are the, those, those experiences both have similarities in what they do to your mind and what they do to your emotions. Just think of yourself as you travel, even as a tourist to another country and the heightened sense of awareness you have from the moment you, you step off the plane is very different from that the sense of heightened awareness you have when you’re walking down the street in your own neighborhood. And, and, and that’s very much kind of the beginning of the entrepreneurial journey. You’re putting yourself in a situation where you need to figure things out.
Avak Kahvejian:
You need to understand who’s who what’s what, and you need to figure out what your next steps are to move forward. That’s, that’s very, very similar to what an immigrant experiences when they come to a new land, now, let alone doing it when you are under duress, let alone doing it when you are doing it by force, as you said, and not necessarily by choice the heightened sense of the heightened sense of awareness and the heightened sense of urgency, you have to survive and thrive. Assimilation involves not simply melting into the, the, the broader hole, which is how we often look at it like, oh, you have to assimilate into this new society. Well, it’s not, it’s not exactly the right definition for the word. If I look up the definition, it says, number one, under assimilation is take in information, ideas, or culture and understand it fully.
Avak Kahvejian:
So that’s actually the, the subject is you taking in the information and understanding it fully. So I think an entrepreneur does exactly that when they first set out to do stuff is figure out situation that their company is trying to disrupt the, the environment that their company’s going to operate in. They need to be consummate learners, a simulators of information and integrators of information, not simply melt in to the status quo, but they need to take it in and understand it so that then they can act on it. And I think that’s exactly what an immigrant has to do. They don’t necessarily simply have to lose their identity and melt into it, but they need to take in the, they need to take in the information and the culture around them and understand it fully.
Denzil Mohammed:
And, and there’s no safety net, right? It’s a risk. And you, you just have, you have, have no choice, but to just forge ahead with it, whether you, you succeed or fail that’s a very, very interesting way of putting that comparison. So 17 years ago, you were that immigrant moving to the Boston area from Montreal, fresh out of your PhD program at McGilI. Did you feel welcomed in the biotech ecosystem here? You know, obviously coming from a country like Canada, which is extremely diverse and depends on immigration, what did you think of the diversity here? Did it, did it help the ecosystem?
Avak Kahvejian:
The, the, the biotech ecosystem here is actually one of the most diverse industries probably that, that I’ve ever seen and it’s become not only an epicenter in the United States, it’s an epicenter for the world and maybe the epicenter for the world. So you have if you see it like a country, it’s a country in and of itself, that is attracting a lot of immigrants. The biotech community here is, and also has, embassies almost, I would call them where companies where countries have actually sent emissaries here to learn about the ecosystem and have a permanent presence here.
Denzil Mohammed:
The second part of that question is that diversity important. And did, does that help the ecosystem?
Avak Kahvejian:
Definitely. most definitely. Now, obviously there, it, it, there’s some uniformity to it in that world. We’re kind of a worldwide community or worldwide tribe of scientists. So many, many of the people coming here come with, again, advanced degrees in, in the Biosciences and have been trained by top academic institutions throughout the world. But at the same time, everyone’s coming with a diverse training with diverse background and bringing new perspectives to, to, to tackling the, the big challenges that we’re trying to tackle. These are not easy problems to, to solve. These are not simply building something in a very predetermined way, in a very a predictable way. There is a lot of uncertainty to what we do in every single endeavor in biotech, virtually every single one. There’s a lot of serendipity involved. A lot of problem solving required a lot of creativity and ingenuity required perpetually and without diverse opinions, diverse backgrounds, interdisciplinary problem solving, we wouldn’t achieve half of what we we achieve. So definitely we need, we need, we need the world applied to, to, to these problems, not just a small group of people or a small group of uniform people to tackle them.
Denzil Mohammed:
And the proof is literally all around you in Cambridge, Moderna, Pfizer companies that are founded by people from all over the place, including the United States. And we have these vaccines. We have these therapeutics, we have, we are advancing our technologies. The data show clearly that immigrants are more likely to study and work in stem. This is just, this is just how it is. And therefore, you know, there’s a great value of H1B, foreign trained workers in the us who are in the stem in stem industries. If you were to give us a suggestion, like, what do you think should be done in the us to address the shortage of American stem workers?
Avak Kahvejian:
We definitely need to make it easier for scientists to come here and to work here because it, it, it can only enrich the intellectual diversity. It can only accelerate the advancement of knowledge and and innovation that we are, are really striving for. And, and as we saw with the pandemic innovation invention and, and advanced advanced technologies are what’s going to help human man overcome major challenges. And, and we can’t sit still. So we’ve experienced the difficulty in bringing scientists from other other countries, even though they have advanced degrees, even though they’ve even demonstrated an and a willingness to come here and contribute. And I, and those barriers have to be those barriers have to come down for sure,
Denzil Mohammed:
In a recent episode of this podcast, I was talking to a son of Dominican immigrants who started a cybersecurity firm. And he said there are 600,000 job openings in, in this field going forward. I mean, that’s just staggering. So I’m bringing it back to something that we mentioned earlier, which is your nonprofit involvement. You’ve stood on the boards of several, including the Armenian schooling Watertown. Now you’re chairman of the board of the international Institute of new England. For those of you who don’t know the international Institute, resettles refugees and creates opportunities for immigrants and refugees to succeed through career advancement pathways to citizenship, et cetera. Why is this work important to you?
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, as, as an immigrant and an immigrant, who’s had it easy. I think I’ve always wanted to figure out a way to give back to to, to immigrants. And, and as we call them new Americans, how do we, how do we help new Americans make a life for themself here? Especially some of those who have not been as fortunate as I have been to land here willingly and to lend here with a, an existing safety net or an existing lending pad. And, and so that’s been really my motivation for, for doing that. Now, again, I play a really small part in the, at the I E as, as chairman of the board, we have really an, an amazing team of people there who, who do everything from the minute someone lands here, a refugee lands here in the United States to finding them housing, helping them get a job, helping them learn the language and to situate themselves, filling their pantries.
Avak Kahvejian:
So they have food and, and, and clothing that work is, is, is a Herculean task and only is only the beginning O of the journey. And so far it’s been, it’s been quite heartwarming and, and amazing to see the outpouring of support we’ve gotten from, from individual donors, from corporate sponsors. And in particular, some of the, the, the, the pillars of industry here in Boston namely the biotech community, the tech community, and the financial services I think especially the biotech community, they appreciate how diversity matters, how it impacts society and how it impacts their business. And they’ve been very generous and, and long term support for what we do.
Denzil Mohammed:
And might I just add refugees come from, not the places that the biggest immigrants sending countries come from, and they’re all over the place, Burma sorry, Myanmar Iraq, Afghanistan the Congo Sudan all these even Ukraine. And so it’s a, it’s a much more difficult task when you have to cater to such culturally linguistically socially different populations. So you talked about new Americans and the idea of the international Institute of course, is to welcome and sustain these families reflecting on your own story and the work that you’ve been doing, explain to audience why the idea of welcoming or being a welcoming or inclusive country is important.
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, if you reflect back on the history of the United States and the history of Canada for that matter, I think what, what makes north America so special? And I think what has one of the things that has contributed to the tremendous amount of success and growth and, and peace and prosperity that we’ve, we’ve benefited from here is that notion of welcoming and including and recruiting people from throughout the world to making, to making, to creating these societies, building these economies. And I, I, I see it firsthand. I felt it firsthand. I see it firsthand, not only in my own experience, but in, in my, in my everyday work as an entrepreneur. And I see it from a historical perspective the, the waves of immigrants and the injection of new ideas, new cultures, new products these things have come from a lot of it have come from the outside and have, have been given the fertile ground here to, to, to flourish.
Avak Kahvejian:
And so I think it’s that amazing alchemy and combination that makes, makes, makes these, these countries so special. And we don’t want to lose that. I, I think there, there is something that we shouldn’t take for granted and that if we do turn off the spigot or constrain it significantly, I think we might not feel it in the near term. People might complain that they don’t have enough workers for particular jobs, et cetera, but I think in the long term, it’ll be even more, more dramatic, more drastic. The impacts will be, will be multi-generational. And, and we have to be mindful of that. So I, I, I, I think we, we should celebrate what, what we’ve accomplished here over, over the, the, the centuries and, and over the last few decades. But there’s obviously more work to do and more opportunity and I’m really glad to be part of it.
Denzil Mohammed:
And again, the proof is all around us. Look at our economy. We’re the biggest economy in the world because we have this constant injection of entrepreneurship and persistence and ideation. And that goes hand in hand with, with welcoming people Avak Kahvejian, general partner at Flagship Pioneering and immigrant from Canada. Thank you so much for joining us on JobMakers.
Avak Kahvejian:
Thank you. It, it was a pleasure. And an honor
Denzil Mohammed:
Jobmakers is a weekly podcast about immigrant entrepreneurship and contribution produced by Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston and the Immigrant Learning Center in Malden, Massachusetts, a not-for-profit that gives immigrants a voice. Thanks for joining us for this week’s incredible story of immigrant entrepreneurship. Remember, you can subscribe to Jobmakers and apple podcast, Spotify over wherever you get your podcasts. And please leave us a review. I’m Denzil Mohammed. See you next Thursday at noon for another JobMakers.
Recent Episodes:
This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Charles Moore, a columnist for The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator, and the authorized, three-volume biographer of Lady Margaret Thatcher. Lord Moore explains why Lady Thatcher is considered the most important female political figure of the 20th century, and reviews the challenges she faced at home and abroad, from trade union strikes to high inflation rates and political discord. They talk about Prime Minister Thatcher partnering with American President Ronald Reagan and standing in solidarity with Poland’s Lech Walesa to face down Soviet communism. Lord Moore describes her middle-class background and a leadership style that led to her 12-year tenure as prime minister in the male-dominated arena of British politics (including nearly 700 sessions of the world-renowned Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons). They also discuss “Thatcherism,” her foundational economic principles and their applicability to other domestic policy topics, as well as lessons for today’s world. The interview concludes with Lord Moore reading from his biography of Lady Thatcher.
Stories of the Week: Attorneys general from 14 states are suing the Biden administration over the Department of Justice’s calls to monitor parental protests at school board meetings. In Alabama, a group is seeking to address the teacher shortage by suspending the requirement to pass a Praxis content mastery exam.
Guest
Charles Moore is currently a columnist of The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator. He was editor in chief of The Spectator, (1984-90); The Sunday Telegraph, (1992-95); and The Daily Telegraph, (1995-2003). Lord Moore is the authorized biographer of Lady Margaret Thatcher, published in three volumes, Margaret Thatcher: From Grantham to the Falklands, (2013); Margaret Thatcher: At Her Zenith – In London, Washington, and Moscow, (2015); and Margaret Thatcher: Herself Alone, (2019). The first volume won the Elizabeth Longford Prize for Historical Biography, the HW Fisher Best First Biography Prize, and Political Book of the Year at the Paddy Power Political Book Awards. In July 2020, Moore was appointed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to the House of Lords, with the title Lord Moore of Etchingham. He was educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he read history. In 2007, he was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Letters from the University of Buckingham.
The next episode will air on Weds., March 23rd, with Dr. Arthur Levine, a scholar with New York University’s Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy, a senior fellow and president emeritus of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, and president emeritus of Columbia University’s Teachers College.
Tweet of the Week
School districts risk losing existing superintendent talent and bypassing promising future leaders. Here are some key reasons why. https://t.co/r9GBQ55mNB
— Education Week (@educationweek) March 14, 2022
News Links
AGs sue Biden administration over DOJ’s call to investigate protesting parents
Alabama officials consider suspending Praxis teacher test requirement
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
[00:00:00] Cara: Hello, everybody. Welcome to The Learning Curve. This is Cara Candal here with the great Gerard Robinson, Gerard, how you doing today? [00:01:00] Well, I’ve been having some tech issues. Gerard, I don’t like
[00:01:04] computers.
[00:01:08] Cara: Listeners might hear that I’m going to have any problems with the microphone, the computer. And I think I would rather just go outside on this beautiful day, go for a run or something like that.
[00:01:19] But no, here we are. And we’ve got a wonderful guest today, Gerard, and lots to talk about what’s going on in your world. What are you thinking about?
[00:01:30] GR: Well, one I’m enjoying the weather. So it was going to be 70 degrees here in Charlottesville. So that’s always a good thing. And I put that in context because it snowed on Saturday in Charlottesville yesterday.
[00:01:40] It’s snow. So that’s part one in terms of what I’m thinking about. I am just shocked by high. Attention. One of the issues that I think is really important is getting a lot of other issues, national, international going on, but this is something to do with our schools. So my article is from The Center Square.
[00:01:59] And [00:02:00] it’s by Bethany Blankley. And it’s about the fact that 14 attorneys generals are suing the bike administration over the department of justice has call to investigate parents who were protesting the school boards. So we know that last fall that trying to general Garland had testified before Congress, a number of parents felt threatened.
[00:02:22] School teachers, board members, and other educators felt threatened by what they saw as real protests against group race theory and other issues. What we know as this stuff is taking place. The national school board association center letter dated September 29th to the Biden administration, opposing the parents who were critical of certain issues, referring to the parent protesters as
[00:02:47] domestic terrorists. This of course raised a lot of contention amongst educators across the board. And six months later 14 attorneys general mostly from red states, including [00:03:00] Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah saying that they have requested from DOJ, be a FOIA request information about the.
[00:03:16] In protests and threats against educators. And they’re saying at this point they had yet to receive any new information or confirmation. In fact, if there is a spike, well, why is this information still important? Well, earlier this month school board became one of 21 states that separate tied with national school board association over the domestic terrorism comment is worth noting that the national school board association, in fact, stepped away from that statement and address.
[00:03:46] But still, there are a number of states that said, we just don’t think this makes sense. And so 21 and seven ties number of them are red states, but you also have blue states like Wisconsin who’s in there also Minnesota, [00:04:00] Pennsylvania. In addition to the 21 states that have separate ties, you also have 29 states that have distanced themselves, including blue states, such as Delaware.
[00:04:11] And so this continues to move forward. It is not a big issue. I think it should be. We use words like that. It just really raises a lot of questions. And at least from my read of what the attorney generals are asking, they’re seeing this also through the lens of free speech rights that parents should have an opportunity and having.
[00:04:31] To voice their opinions. Now in voicing your opinion, I surely don’t support threats of any type violence school board members. That’s not the issue, but I will do have two questions. At least it’d be interesting, not for you to answer per se, but just for our listeners. Number one, why aren’t there any attorney generals from blue states, a part of this lawsuit and number two, why haven’t more states separate times?
[00:04:57] With national school board association seems to be [00:05:00] more way upstate. So this very well could be able to wear parts and piece but we see those things happen. And it’s also worth noting that this has gone both ways. Remember when Secretary Paige was the leader of department of education under the Bush administration he had referred to in the conversation.
[00:05:16] Two teachers’ unions as domestic terrorists. And that happened as well. And so this is going on both sides, but the fact that this is not getting the kind of attention that it should, and the fact that they have to lease attorney generals have to sue the Biden administration, DOJ, secretary of it to get information.
[00:05:34] So then we can actually find out if in fact there are more spikes or not at least to be sure.
[00:05:40] Cara: So you bring up two points that come to my mind. The first is that it feels to me like a lot of folks are severing ties with the national school board association. I don’t know, but we should get some, data on that because it sounds like that organization has been having a tough time all around for many [00:06:00] reasons.
[00:06:00] But the other thing that I think you touched on. Is listen, I don’t personally agree with a lot of what’s been going on at some of these school board meetings, surrounding curriculum, et cetera. However, That said, what I do agree with completely is number one parent’s rights. And I’m glad that people are showing up at school board meetings because lots of times they don’t especially pre pandemic.
[00:06:24] Right. But parents’ rights to know parents’ rights to ask questions. Parents’ rights to show up at school. Board meetings are so important. I don’t think we should be discouraging parents from that in any way, but where did we, as to your point on both sides, where did we. Utterly lose the ability to talk to one another civility, because I think that, on the one hand, yeah, the term domestic terrorist is to me, inning to use when you’re talking about parents, probably the vast majority of whom might have an elevated tone, but certainly aren’t domestic terrorists.
[00:06:56] Right. But then on the other hand, we have seen lots of [00:07:00] pictures and videos of school, board meetings where parents. Going in also unable to engage with school board members in a productive and civil way. So I think just writ large in our society, I’m worried about the extent to which we don’t seem to be able as a people to have civil conversations and maybe come to an agreement, which I think Gerard has led to.
[00:07:22] the product of which has been some of these more draconian laws that we’re seeing states trying to pass really hampering what teachers are able to say in the classroom. And so a totally different conversation and there are two sides to that story too. Especially how it’s been playing out in the media.
[00:07:41] But, I think. that you’re right on that this heightened level on both sides , of just in civil or uncivil in civil, what’s the word I’m looking for here? Gerard conversation is really at the root of this problem. Parents do have a right to. Uh, Schools are never going to be able to meet every parent’s single wish and [00:08:00] desire for what their kids experienced in the classroom and especially in our district schools that are larger.
[00:08:06] But parents absolutely , have a right to know. I just hope that on both sides parents and administrators in school boards can learn that. communicate with each other more civilly, because this is what you get. when we get this upset with one another, that’s a really tough issue, Gerard.
[00:08:20] And it’s one that I never thought we would be talking about on a podcast like this when we started it. But I can tell you that. My story the week, I’m really keen to get your take as a former secretary of education and a couple of different states, my friend, and this is about the state of Alabama, which I want to say.
[00:08:37] I think there’s a lot of good stuff going on in Alabama, this legislative session, they’re trying to get past some really productive school choice legislation, early literacy stuff. So shout out to Alabama. However, I have some questions about this next one, and this is. An article entitled Alabama officials consider suspending practice teacher test requirement.
[00:08:59] And this is [00:09:00] from education week. Now, Gerard, let me lead by saying for our listeners, many of you probably already know there’s really little evidence that teacher certification. Equals better teaching, right? There’s an practice being a certification test. a test that is used across multiple states for teacher certification purposes.
[00:09:17] And so the data on the relationship between teacher certification, these tests and successful teaching are scant, but. What we’re seeing in a lot of states, as you know, Gerard is this push to figure out how do we stem the bleeding of teachers from the profession? Although I read an article recently that said, it’s not as bad as we think.
[00:09:37] I think it’s that it’s worse in certain pockets to put, to stem the bleed of teaching from the passion and get new folks into the profession. So. Initiative in Alabama is supposed to go to the first thing. It’s like, how do we get more teachers into the profession that are actually already on the cusp of being there?
[00:09:53] So these are people that have been to ed schools then through educator preparation programs, but can’t pass this test in some cases by like three [00:10:00] questions. And so state officials are looking at the number of people that could get into the classroom. If they just waived this specific requirement and saying, Hey, this could be a good thing.
[00:10:09] Can I understand that this article then goes into the question that comes to my mind, which is so. What are our sort of barriers to entering the classroom if we care about teacher quality. And it’s not that Alabama’s not thinking about that, but one of the things they’re proposing, for example, is there other tests that teachers have to take?
[00:10:29] One is really. Folio of the work that teachers have done throughout their educator preparation program. And that that’s supposed to be good way to know whether or not a teacher can teach. Here’s my question for you. And here’s where I’m really struggling. The practice exam is different from, for example, a portfolio of work in that .
[00:10:48] It was supposed to be. Content knowledge, it’s supposed to allow teachers to display that they have mastery of the content that they’re going to be teaching. We’re. Some of the things we know in educator preparation programs, [00:11:00] portfolios, especially we’ll focus on are things like pedagogy. And I think personally, as a former ed school professor at schools, A lot of time on pedagogy and not enough on content knowledge.
[00:11:11] And we know that kids need teachers with content knowledge to be successful in schools. So I’m a little bit, I understand the impetus to do this in Alabama, but I am a little bit befuddled, even though I know the data that say these tests don’t necessarily make for good teachers. My question is if we start to bring down these barriers to entry now, and we’re not thoughtful about.
[00:11:33] How long such an initiative would last, or we’re not thoughtful about alternative ways to make sure educators have the content knowledge. They need to teach kids. What are going to be the consequences, both short and longterm for children in classrooms. So with your state chief hat on Gerard, tell me , what are your thoughts?
[00:11:53] GR: So I will wear my state chief hat on this one because every state has got very interesting dynamics on how it’ll play out[00:12:00] what I will wear as my policy hat. So , there are two things that come to mind for me. Number one, what is the end goal is the goal to keep people in the profession or attract people to the profession.
[00:12:13] And so if you’re saying that or that you, but if the groups are saying the practice is willing, now take that. And you’d get rid of it. Therefore we’ll have more teachers in the profession and then we’ll clap and say, that was a good idea. We got more teachers. Now, if we say that we will attract and keep teachers.
[00:12:31] That’s great. Now we know there’s a tough time keeping teachers right now with pandemic. So if it means that we suspended , that’s fine. I guess what I’m trying to figure out is what is the long-term goal. And so right now Alabama’s linked 47th and weeding last. And this is according to a recent story about Alabama and what you’re talking about, if the goal is to raise reading, and if it means getting rid of practice is going to increase reading scores that you get rid of [00:13:00] practice, because the goal is , really to increase reading scores and math scores.
[00:13:04] If the goal is to keep people in the profession and you don’t raise masks, Or reading scores. And the goal is let’s just keep people in the profession or is it to attract more people? There’s also, of course, an Alabama going to be a question about diversity whether it’s poverty first gen color or gender.
[00:13:21] So that’s another dynamic. So as far as I’m going to answer, because I’m not always sure. I know what. We’re trying to reach because through all the B the multiple efforts that Alabama, Virginia and other states have passed over the last 20 years, we’ve seen some success, but there’s still pockets in 2022 that were challenging in 1992.
[00:13:44] And we try adding tests, changing tests, moving tests, and it seems not to make a difference. So at one point it goes to show me that maybe we’re focusing on. Solely on one issue, which is testing where we often don’t have. I don’t think really good [00:14:00] conversations about what role, if we’re talking about families, what role do families play in this?
[00:14:04] What role does family structure play in this? What role could afterschool programs play in being an assistant to schools and as they try to raise math and reading scores, and are we frankly, at a point where we just have to accept that some students for a host of reasons just are not going to. The standards we’ve set for them, no matter what role we change or there’s controversial, we’ve got examples of changing rules and people rate rising, but does this always seem to work across the board?
[00:14:33] So for me, policy side, I’m not sure what question are we trying?
[00:14:38] Cara: Yeah, no, it’s a good one. And maybe Alabama and other states, as they undertake some of these initiatives to basically get bodies into classrooms, need to think about how they use tons of this federal money to make up for. Some of the things that we are afraid teachers in the short term might be lacking because they’re having problems with these tests as we [00:15:00] rethink these processes and the good questions you raised Gerard, we are going to bring in now most fabulous guests coming to us from across the pond.
[00:15:10] This is pretty cool. We are going to be speaking with Charles Moore. He’s a columnist at the Delhi Telegraph and the spectator and the biographer of Margaret Thatcher coming up. Right.[00:16:00]
[00:16:17] Learning Curve listeners. We are very fortunate to have with us today, Charles Moore, he is currently a columnist of the daily Telegraph and the spectator. He was editor in chief of the spectator. the Sunday Telegraph and the daily Telegraph. Lord Moore is the authorized biographer of lady Margaret Thatcher published in three volumes, Margaret Thatcher from Grantham to the fall.
[00:16:40] Margaret Thatcher at her Zenith in London, Washington, and Moscow, and Margaret Thatcher herself alone. The first volume one, the Elizabeth Longford prize for historical biography, the HW Fisher. Best first biography prize and political book of the year at the Patty power political book. In [00:17:00] July, 2020 Moore was appointed by the prime minister of the United Kingdom to the house of Lords.
[00:17:05] With the title Lord Moore of Etchingham. He was educated at Eton and Trinity college, Cambridge, where he read history. In 2007, he was awarded an honorary doctor of letters from the university of Buckingham. Lord Moore, welcome to The Learning Curve. It’s just so wonderful to have you today, and I’m sure you probably hear this from a lot of people, but I like many have been watching The Crown a little bit and have only, just now gotten to the point where we’re learning about Margaret Thatcher.
[00:17:40] So across the globe, as you know, many consider the former British prime minister Lady Margaret Thatcher to have really been the most important female political figure of the 20th century. And you, as I just said, have completed this three-volume biography of her. Could you give our listeners an [00:18:00] overview what her world-changing accomplishments were?
[00:18:05] And maybe you can tell us a little bit of what we don’t see on The Crown.
[00:18:10] Charles: Yes. Well, thank you. The Crown is a vivid picture, but essentially wrong
[00:18:18] because what it shows is Mrs. Thatcher sort of trying to have an argument with the queen. And of course, this absolutely was not the case. And in fact, there was a lot of mutual respect, which was shown particularly by the fact that the Queen attended Lady Thatcher’s funeral, and the only other prime minister’s
[00:18:35] funeral she attended in all these 70 years, is that of Winston Churchill. So actually the relationship was strong. but to come to your question the so much one could say, but I would pull out three things. First of all, I would say there was this thing called Thatcherism, which has made a big difference to the world, which is a political, economic dot.
[00:18:57] About the independence of human [00:19:00] beings and of nations. So that it’s sort of to do with self-reliance and so belief and a capacity to get on with problems rather than shoving all the burden on the state. And the next is The very important role. She played in the defeat of Soviet communism, where she was by far the closest and most importantly, to working with president Regan and because they were friends and bargain from a position of strength they were able to come to terms with the changing Soviet union of Mikhail Gorbachev.
[00:19:31] And this is a very relevant question for the current time, the current times that we’re in. And then finally I think the fact that she was the first enormous. Woman leader in the Western world made an enormous difference to the fortunes of women in the world, and also produced a new style of leadership, which was much more challenging than the usual male leadership.
[00:19:53] So she’s the sort of role model of a particular set of attitudes and also a particular type of character and a [00:20:00] way of women leading, which I think is enormously influential in the 21st.
[00:20:04] Cara: Absolutely. I’d like to press you a little bit on that last point that she presented a new style of leadership. I mean, in certainly , here I am in a country where we have yet to elect a female head of state.
[00:20:16] could you just push a little bit on those aspects of female leadership that were perhaps a little more challenging as you put it?
[00:20:23] Charles: Well, what she thought was that men tended to have a club in politics. Back to one another up worked against the public interest because what she used to say was there’s no second chance for a woman and the trouble is there.
[00:20:37] Isn’t a second chance for the men. she would say so that when they failed people didn’t get rid of them. They just looked after one another, but they weren’t so good at looking after the country. And what she was saying was. She felt her leadership had to do the absolute best at all times. she also used this as a common sense way of talking.
[00:20:56] So she would say she, used economics in a very [00:21:00] political way, which is unusual in Britain. So she would get to grips with serious economic problems, but she would talk about it in terms of women’s experience at the time. So she would say, look, this is an era of inflation. We women know what it’s like to manage a hotel, but.
[00:21:14] She was talking at a time when most women were, what were then called Housewives. We know how to manage your household budget and don’t get fooled by all this jargon. The men are using, they’re making a mess of it, but we know the reality and another joke she sort of jokes she would make about it was, she’d say the Cox may Crow, but the hen lays the egg so that the female is the one who actually does things.
[00:21:37] And the man is the one who just talks.
[00:21:41] Cara: I think I might have to drop that at the dinner table tonight.
[00:21:49] Charles: Okay.
[00:21:51] Cara: That’s wonderful. So, in, as you said so much of what you. Right about in her life seems so relevant today, not just what is [00:22:00] going on globally in the invasion of Ukraine. But also you you’ve already mentioned inflation, right? So when mark Satcher was elected prime minister in 79 Britain was being torn apart by trade unions.
[00:22:15] High inflation rates and political discord, which certainly sounds familiar to this podcast, hosts ears. Talk a little bit more about those foundational economic principles that she established, and then more specifically the impact of those principles on restoring the British place in the world.
[00:22:35] British prestige.
[00:22:37] Charles: Yes, Britain at that time was much more socialist than the United States at that time. And what had happened was we’d got poorer relatively, and we got very, very smelled up with labor union disputes and national, particularly with nationalized industries. So the capacity of British workforce to produce competitively and to work production.[00:23:00]
[00:23:00] Had greatly diminished. And also the labor unions had been taken over by the left to some extent and wielding too much political power. So the question was, how do you restore prosperity and an open economy and a better polity so that the people who are elected are the people who make the political decisions, not the head of the labor unions.
[00:23:21] And she got to grips with all those questions. And of course, inflation was a function of this problem because it was overspending overboard. Very little control of the money supply and she didn’t succeed in every respect, but she succeeded in at least two very important ones. One was that she privatized great chunks.
[00:23:40] In fact, the great majority of nationalized industries and made them competitive and perhaps the most important of all was. Change labor law in such a way that most of these disputes and almost all this political intervention by trade unions went away because she would turn power in the unions to the members rather than just the [00:24:00] leaderships.
[00:24:01] So little statistic will tell you that, but when she came into office in 1979, Britain lost more than 29 million working days to strikes in that year. When she left, when she left office in 1990. Britain lost 1.6 million working days districts. And now the figure is, less than half a million, half a million a year.
[00:24:21] So, she’s often called divisive Mrs. Sacha, but in this respect, she produced harmony. The, workforce became 90% of the dispute disappeared, and people got back to work.
[00:24:33] Cara: And can you talk a little bit about the impact of that on how Britain was perceived across the globe?
[00:24:39] Charles: Yes. I think one thing she was very good at was though she was a very much a conservative person.
[00:24:45] She was also a great innovator. And so Britain had ceased to be a model in the early days of the industrial revolution and free trade in the 19th century. And so on Britain had been the nation of all the nations in the world. Even more than the United States, we should integrate. In politics [00:25:00] and economics and in business and science, and this was much, much diminished.
[00:25:04] And by the 1970s and people weren’t ready looking to Britain, but with particularly privatization and also labor union reform, and also so-called monetarism about controlling inflation. People started to look and they said, gosh, Britain is doing, experts is doing way. This is an example of privatization, particularly.
[00:25:23] So that say it became a. Intellectual export a policy export for Britain was bad at any privatization before Britain started this. And it became a worldwide phenomenon, which it continues to be to this day. And people knew what this is such as doctrines were because she was a very good preacher in politics.
[00:25:40] So she’d be always telling you what she thought and why it mattered, and people could pick up on this and they could apply it to their end situation.
[00:25:47] so
[00:25:48] Cara: you say she was a very good preacher of politics, which is fascinating to me. And one of the things that I think is fascinating to many Americans is prime minister’s questions in the house [00:26:00] of commons.
[00:26:00] and she is known for participating in almost 700 sessions, 698 sessions. I’m curious to know, because you talk a bit about her, how she presented herself, how is it that, she was a middle-class person? What was it in her background? In her formative education that helped her to thrive in this heated political environment?
[00:26:26] Charles: Well, I think it’s important that her parents had no sons. She had a sister and her. In those days in that lower middle-class provincial Britain, where she came from from a, a gruesome shop. Very few fathers would’ve wanted their daughters to be highly educated, but her father did, he was interested in politics himself.
[00:26:46] And he really encouraged her and she was a very good academic friend. And so from a good local school, she got into. And not only was she very unusual as a woman getting into Oxford in those days, but she also brought in [00:27:00] as a scientist, which is even rare for a woman. And that type of analytical brain that she had in mastery of facts was immensely useful.
[00:27:09] And she learned about political and public affairs from her father who was as well as being a small businessman was a Methodist lay preacher. So he would go around and preach and she would listen to the way he’s spoken about. And so she was sort of ready for the challenge. And by getting into Oxford, she began to meet people from much richer and more powerful families and get to know all that as well.
[00:27:31] And though she was, I think, very lonely in many ways. As the only woman in the lower middle class woman, she also understood how to take advantage of that, to bring something fresh to the conservative party and to, public affairs. And one thing she always said is the old wisdom Neil saw that people use when they say time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted.
[00:27:52] And this is why she was so successful at parliamentary questions, as you mentioned, because she always did the work. And so, as you know, in that, system of [00:28:00] questions, you don’t know what’s going to get thrown at you by MPS on both sides of the house. And so she was fantastic. He well-prepared twice a week, every week, parliament.
[00:28:09] And this was enables her to grasp its use and also to sort of keep an eye on the whole range of governments and to have a quick answer, because she has a very crisp way of talking when people were fraying this stuff at us. So it was a sort of a challenge, a 15 minute challenge twice a week, keeping her up to the mark and it allowed her to dominate the house of commons in a way that rarely happened before.
[00:28:32] And I think never happened. The prime minister
[00:28:36] GR: arrived to power and began to challenge bureaucracy at the same time that president Ronald Reagan ascended to the white house and began the challenge, the bureaucracy, and the way we had done business in DC for decades, both of them became political friends, and both of them were also committed to winning the cold war by defeating Soviet communism.
[00:28:56] Would you discuss their friendship, the historic significance of [00:29:00] the. Political economic and foreign policy partnerships as well as ways in which their policy ideas and leadership different.
[00:29:08] Charles: And this is very much in the front of my mind at present, because I’ve just recently been in the United States, completing a BBC documentary television documentary about the Reagan Thatcher relationship, which will come out, I think, in about two months or less.
[00:29:21] And it’s also, I think, relevant to where we are now with this terrible situation in UK. The friendship between Reagan and Thatcher was a very unusual one because it was forged in adversity in the 1970s, when neither of them were in power, that’s unusual in the global level that such a relationship starts that way.
[00:29:40] And so they knew straight away. They clicked very first meeting in 1975, about the big issues, economic and cold war. They couldn’t be more different styles of people, you know, Mr. Reagan, very relaxed genial. not so interested in the detail. Her very serious, very earnest, very, always in a hurry. But they were [00:30:00] complimentary to one another and they both liked that.
[00:30:01] I think she thought he was the classic ideal of the American partners, his actor, of course, and this good-looking man and charming man. And he thought of her as a charming well-mannered English lady of greatness. And right from the start it worked. And what was unique was also the situation because it’s never happened before, or since there’s a two term American presidents had the same British prime minister throughout his time.
[00:30:29] He came in later than she did into office. And he left earlier. And so all through this crucial cold war period, these two friends were working together. Sometimes they had big tensions, but they always had great respect and affection for one another throughout. And they use that to enormous effect in the bigger issue.
[00:30:47] I think it is right to say. So the biggest issue, which was what to do about the Soviet union and how to win the cold war.
[00:30:54] GR: Well, to stick with the idea of communism and foreign policy. Lady [00:31:00] Thatcher’s 1988 visit to Poland, including meetings with solidarity leader, Lech Walesa in the shipbuilding city of the Gdansk was among the most triumphant and emotional episodes of our career.
[00:31:13] The Iron Lady had a complex domestic relationship with trade unions, but could you discuss her enthusiastic reception, bipolar shipyard workers, as well as parishioners as Saint Brigid’s Church in Gdansk. And what did.
[00:31:27] Charles: It was very important. Indeed. The British visit as indeed with her visit to Moscow in the previous year in 1987. But in both occasions, she was incredibly well received by the people. Whereas the regime was somewhat uneasy about her. She had always said about trade unions to take your Polish point in particular that trade unions were good things, but they had to be responsible to their members rather than perverted by the leaderships.
[00:31:53] And what was marvelous about solidarity was it was an authentic trade union rather than a communist front organization. [00:32:00] And it grew up in revolt against communist government. And that was just great from Mrs. Hatch’s point of view, it was an authentic workers movement rather than a bogus one. And they, I think look to her and to present Regan much more to other leaders in the west, because part of the strategy and belief of Regan and.
[00:32:20] We’re not just talking to governments here. When we deal with cold war issues behind the iron curtain, we want to reach out to the people of these places. They are not free and they want to be free and we can help them be free. And they really did that. And the Mrs. Sanchez visits there’s particularly these two ones I described, I’ve just mentioned exemplified that.
[00:32:41] So when she got to get dance, she was absolutely fated by. So these people that, but at the very point, when she sees to be the official visitor of the Polish government and was handed over to the reception by the trade union leaders by Lexa went by solidarity, produce television, cut off everything. [00:33:00] So the Polish people were not allowed to see anything of her in Gdansk from that moment.
[00:33:05] And that shows the situation the Polish government was in so huge crowds, recenter and Gdansk. And of course it was also very. Church element, which you mentioned in the, in solidarity and relationship with the Polish Pope, John Paul, the second, all that was invisible to the wider Polish public, because all the official media cuts off, but she was the heroine of the time.
[00:33:27] Gdansk, a friend of mine who was there at the time, he saw a notice in English, Richard in one of the markets and get danced. We said, Mrs. Sacha bipolar and, was the spirit at the time. And what we’re talking about there, 87, 88 is the time when coming to the end of president Reagan’s time when the cracks really, really were showing in the the Soviet union and in the Eastern block, and Mrs.
[00:33:49] Sacha had established a good relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, and she was the first British leader really to get to know Gorbachev. And it was, she that recommended him to Reagan on the grounds that [00:34:00] he really was changing things. She didn’t pretend to agree with him. And the first thing she said to him almost when she met him for the.
[00:34:07] Mr Gorbachev, you need to know that I hate communism was almost the first words. But they had a very frank and she considered honest discussion, 1984, Christmas, 1984. And from then on the whole atmosphere was changing from the big buildup of nuclear weapons that she had. And Reagan had arranged in Europe in the early eighties to a more warm relationship, which brought about huge change in the later eighties and led to the fall of the Berlin.
[00:34:33] GR: When you think about the nature and the character of naturalism, and that term is loaded on bogus in the U S as well as as someone sitting on the other side of the pond and how it was expressed in her views about education reform, environmental conservation, and the European community. How should we think about the nature and character of naturism as relates for guiding lessons for us here in the world today?
[00:34:58] Charles: I [00:35:00] did think secularism is a philosophy. I think it’s more like a disposition which very much reflected her character. It involves a set of beliefs, but they’re not very from doctrines. What they are is a belief in, I think they’re grounded in a belief in Judeo-Christian civilization and in the, virtues of the way.
[00:35:19] she was very keen on the idea that these virtues should be recognized by the west and critically examined by the west and promoted by the west. And she felt that there’d been this terrible weakness in the culture of the west as the post-war era continued. And so she was, it was a sort of call to arms.
[00:35:37] I don’t mean literally to a harm. So in a way, she did a call for nuclear rearmament. Come on. We’ve got something that we can really offer the world. We’ve got a great tradition. We’ve got a great idea of markets, of Liberty, of choice, of national independence. And this is something we should be evangelical about.
[00:35:55] We shouldn’t just let the world divide up into spheres of influence. We need to [00:36:00] tell this good message to the world. And that I think, and also of course emphasize the freedom of the individual in becoming responsible and then improving the condition of society through individual, as well as collective efforts.
[00:36:13] And I think all that came across. So any good philosopher could rip apart some of these doctrines, they didn’t. Coalesce very well. They weren’t systematic philosophy, but they were very, very important messages about the way we ought to be living and the pride we should be able to have in ourselves.
[00:36:32] And that by the way, is why she’s called the iron lady, because it was intended as an insult that prescription, it was given her by a Russian communist red army newspaper. Which was teasing her in a sexist way. It said, you know, think Germany had an iron shops that are in business in Bismarck. She thinks she could be an iron lady.
[00:36:50] Ha ha. And you know, no lady can be iron. And she immediately made a speech saying, I stand before you in my red, she phoned gun with my head, gently [00:37:00] waves, the lady of the Western world. And I’m happy to be called that if that means I stand up for our beliefs against those of communism. And so she knew how to turn.
[00:37:10] The insult into the compliments and it was this sort of almost aggressive way of dealing with things, or certainly very front footed way of dealing with things which made a great difference to the affairs of the world. In
[00:37:23] GR: 1988 in the summer, a chance to travel to Oxford university with a delegation from the university of Virginia to talk about education reform.
[00:37:33] And naturally of course, we talked about some of the reforms that she made when she was in office a month ago. I had a chance to return to England this time to the university of Birmingham. To again, talk to scholars and others about education between the time that she was in office until the time that we’re in right now, how much of her philosophy or bachelorism has relates to education and its relationship to the economy, to jobs and to [00:38:00] making England stronger are still in place now.
[00:38:03] And are there some lessons others around the world can learn from that?
[00:38:06] Charles: Well, it’s been a story of success and failure. She was not fundamentally able to alter many of the, I would say rather bad systems of state education, national education paid for by the state in Britain. The fundamental structure remained the same, but she was able to introduce higher standards of curriculum that she was able to introduce.
[00:38:31] More parental choice. And most importantly she introduced the idea that new schools could start, could generate themselves rather than having, just to be invented by government. And the bad schools could fail and clear. And so we have what we call the academy program. And this means that schools have much more management or their budgets, and they used to have a much more pride in themselves and much more capacity to organize as academy trusts with more than one school in each trust.[00:39:00]
[00:39:00] So you’re getting the sense, that’s a reality of standards and choice is there in the system and that tends to affect what people learn. So. There would be a more rigorous learning that there would have been in those days. And therefore a better preparation for a modern economy and way of life.
[00:39:17] However, I wouldn’t want to exaggerate these achievements because I think fundamentally the British educational system remains controlled by the left and actually in recent years, in many ways, the standards. Declined as the left has become more militant. And that’s particularly happened in our universities as I think it has in the United States.
[00:39:35] So we had getting a big standard, this you all over again. This is how it didn’t always prevail, particularly in social questions. And so not all of her legacy is in place right now, but what is in place, I think is the idea about what this all to be, she can be invoked in order to find out what was said, what was argued, what was done and try it.
[00:39:55] Push that in a new era. And I would say that’s also true in, [00:40:00] well, the fast, because now we’ve got back in a weird situation to the cold war It’s no longer about Soviet communism, but it’s certainly about Russian power and dictatorship and so on and aggression. And how she behaves in relation to that is relevant and there ought to be more attention to it.
[00:40:15] Now in this terrible situation.
[00:40:17] GR: You know what I heard you say? Or the term, the iron lady, and it was used to. Denigrate her. And she ended up adopting that term so much of what she also had to deal with was driven by gender bias and other dynamics when she was in power. There were few women in the UK on the continent, even in the us, in positions of power today in Europe and the United States, more women in power are there some lessons that women, as well as men who were working under the leadership of women can learn from her.
[00:40:48] Style in terms of leadership, diplomacy, and vision.
[00:40:53] Charles: Yeah, I mean, the style is very different today, but first of all, the fact that she achieved this dominance, which was total dominance of the [00:41:00] British political scene for more than 10 years was very important, particularly as it was so innovative.
[00:41:05] Also I think she had an interesting take on this. Women employees policies would agree with, but I think it was very challenging and successful. She said to herself, she didn’t I to say this in public much in order for women to win, they need to capture the citizens that men really think their own.
[00:41:24] So she thought it was not a good idea , for women politicians to talk so much about what are traditionally called women’s issues. Health, let’s say she understood of course the importance of health, but she knew that men were not so interested in that she thought the thing to do where you really win is if you can capture what men care about, what do men care about in politics?
[00:41:43] If they care about war and money and international relations and diplomacy. And so she said her mind above all to conquer those subjects, herself economic policy, cold war policy, and defense policy. And [00:42:00] international relations such as the European community and global relations. And once you do that, you’ve really proved that women can do it.
[00:42:09] And the men are sort of slightly put to flight. and I think she did show that, and it says as a source of anything you can do, I can do better aspects of all of this, which as many as a huge difference to the world. success of Z generations of women, many of whom will not agree with Mrs.
[00:42:26] Thatcher’s actual politics, but will be most interested in her example. Thank you. Well, Lord, more would love for
[00:42:34] GR: you to read a passage of your choice.
[00:42:38] Charles: Yes. Thank you. A word of explanation is required because most of the words in this paragraph. Actually all the words of president Reagan, but I’m reading them out because of the context 40 years ago this year the full cleanse war took place when Argentina captured Portuguese territory, the Falkland islands invaded them and an incredible feat of arms Mrs.
[00:42:58] Thatcher and the British [00:43:00] forces recovered them. 8,000 miles away off the coast of south America. Amazing military feat and political achievement. In that she had quite a difficult time with United States because United States naturally did not want a war in the American continent. But in the end, her friendship with president Reagan prevails and so great with her success, there’s all these attempts to bring about sort of United nations peace plans and things didn’t happen.
[00:43:26] And there was total victory for America. And at this time happily coincided for her with president Reagan, having a state visit to. And visiting the queen. And of course there’s a team. This is Thatcher. And he made the speech in the houses of parliament, where he very kindly from her point of view, use the full example to meet the big play he was making about the nature of the cold war struggle, the Argentina.
[00:43:52] And Falklands, we’re not strictly speaking about the cold war, but they shared the capacities of the Alliance and of. British determination. And so [00:44:00] he made this little speech and I’ll read you a little bit about , just one paragraph which became an important part of the big message, the global message that Reagan and Thatcher we’re giving and this is, what it said.
[00:44:12] The Reagan visit to Britain began on Monday the 7th of June. So it was no whisper of disagreements over. The following day, the president’s addressed MPs and peers in the world gallery the houses of parliament. It was a major set piece speech making much more explicit it’s in the context of the Soviet repression of Poland, where martial law had been declared the previous December, his belief that the west could and should win the cold war freedom.
[00:44:38] He declared in a passage, which he wrote into the speech. Against the advice of the state department Reagan made the Falklands positive. Here’s why the theme, and these are his words on distant islands in the south Atlantic young men are fighting for Britain and yes, voices have been raised, protesting the sacrifice for lumps of broken earth so [00:45:00] far away.
[00:45:00] But those young men aren’t fighting for real estate. They fight for a cause for the beliefs that armed aggression must not be allowed to succeed. The people must participate in the decisions of government. The decisions of government made under the rule of law. If that had been a support for that principle some 45 years ago, perhaps our generation wouldn’t have suffered the bloodletting of world war two.
[00:45:24] And then I say, this was the only part of his speech, which attracted applause as British troops prepared for the final assault. Mrs. Thatcher could not have asked for clearer public support. And I would just add to that as the person referred back to the second world war 45 years earlier, 45 years on, I think we can very much apply these words to the situation with Ukraine.
[00:45:47] GR: We’re Lord Moore. Thank you so much for spending time with us today. Thank you for sharing, not only your scholarship with your insight on her as a person, as a politician, as a visionary at a time in world [00:46:00] history, where we should be concerned less with the right and the left, as much as doing the right thing to make sure we leave our.
[00:46:06] children and families a better world your work and your words have been very helpful to this conversation. You also mentioned you have work coming out soon about Reagan and Thatcher. And so please keep us abreast of that. Work would love to have a conversation with you at a later date about that as
[00:46:22] Charles: well.
[00:46:23] I’d love to do that, and I’m very grateful. It’s been a great pleasure talking to you. Take care. Thank you.[00:47:00]
[00:47:47] Cara: And as always Learning Curve listeners, we close it out with our Tweet of the Week. This one from EdWeek Tweeted on March 14th, school districts risks, losing superintendent talent and bypassing promising [00:48:00] future leaders. Here are some key reasons why, so this one friends, I mean, living here in Boston, it is hard.
[00:48:09] to ignore the idea that our Boston public schools in particular have just a really difficult time hanging on to superintendents. And it’s having a negative impact for a long time. Now it’s been having a negative impact on kids. So, I think that this is a really great read and some of the reasons they give is that superintendent turnover is only.
[00:48:33] Some settings that let’s not blame the pandemic for everything, because some superintendents are actually likely to stay, but that, and these are the important ones. So BPS mayor. Whew. I hope you were listening. Hiring great superintendent. Is getting more complex. And this article says at school boards will need to consider greener talent and probably opening up their wallets and [00:49:00] developing folks which, who in a big old school district that is not something to take lightly.
[00:49:05] Finally. The challenges faced by female superintendents has been placed into stark light, according to this article, by the pandemic so that, you know, we really need to think about diversity in the superintendents workforce and what that means, especially when we are hiring superintendents. It’s a really important job, Gerard.
[00:49:26] It’s about time. We started thinking more deeply. I think we talk a lot about teachers, but we’re not often talking about the people who are steering the ship right at the top of the district. Next week, we are going to be speaking with Arthur Levine. Many of you will know him. He is the president emeritus of Columbia’s teacher college.
[00:49:44] I bet he will have something to say about all of these things, but that more coming up Gerard until then. Please take care of yourself and I’ll be waiting for you’re always illuminating take on whatever stories [00:50:00] and commentary we have in the week ahead.
[00:50:02] GR: Sounds good. Take
[00:50:04] Cara: care. All right. Have a good one.
[00:50:05] Take care.[00:51:00]
Related Content
Hubwonk host Joe Selvaggi talks with former CEO of Kyiv Post and senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War Nataliya Bugayova about her research on the rise of Vladimir Putin and how it can inform understanding of the Russian invasion, particularly when viewed through the eyes of Ukrainians.
Guest:
Nataliya Bugayova is a non-resident National Security Fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, where she led Russia & Ukraine research team. Nataliya serves as the Director of Strategic at Vertical Knowledge. She was the CEO of the Kyiv Post. She also served as Chief of Staff and Adviser on cooperation with international financial institutions to a Ukrainian Economy Minister after the Euromaidan Revolution in February 2014. She holds a Master’s in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. She is also an ISF fellow at Schmidt Futures. She is originally from Ukraine.
WATCH:
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
Joe Selvaggi:
This is Hubwonk. I’m Joe Selvaggi.
Joe Selvaggi:
Welcome to Hubwonk, a podcast of Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston. The eyes of the world have turned to Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine, where for the first time, since the second world war a sovereign European country is facing an existential threat from an advancing army. The Russian leaders, Vladimir Putin characterized it as a military action necessary to rescue fellow Russians from an oppressive fascist dictatorship. The Ukrainians themselves led by their charismatic president. Volodymyr Zelensky have defied this narrative by both mounting armed and civilian resistance, and also waging and winning the public opinion campaign for support from the United States and Europe in an epic struggle to defend its right to sovereignty over the might of a former superpower. The Ukrainian people have accepted the mantle of frontline combatants, defending freedom and the international rule of law, but it prevail over a determined aggressor with ambitions to return Russia, to its former Soviet prominence.
Joe Selvaggi:
And what could those of us who look on in horror do to help them in their struggle? My guest today is senior fellow from the Institute for the study of war Nataliya Bugayova where she leads the Russia and Ukraine portfolio. Her work focuses on the Kremlin’s foreign policy decision making and ongoing global campaigns. Her research paper entitled how we got here with Russia. The Kremlin’s worldview written in 2019 is a chillingly precedent analysis of president Putin’s ambitions to ive the humiliation of the fall of the Soviet union and lead Russia back to its role as rival to the us and the west. Miss Bugayova will share with us how the themes in her research should inform our understanding of this war and guide our response. She’ll also share with us, her experience of having her country attack and trying to help friends and family survive the onslaught. When I return, I’ll be joined by Institute for the study of war senior fellow Natalia Bugayova. All right, we’re back. This is Hubwonk I’m Joe Selvaggi, and I’m now pleased to be joined by national security fellow for the Institute for the study of war. Nataliya Bugayova. Welcome to Hubwonk, Natalia Bugayova.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Thank you. Great to be here
Joe Selvaggi:
Now, before we dive into the details of our our discussion of the, which is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia you’ve had a long journey to get to the, the Institute for the study of war. In fact, we knew each other back in 2012 at, at Harvard Kennedy school. But for our listeners, take us through that journey. How did you go from a Ukrainian citizen all the way over to the United States to to the study of war?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Absolutely. so I’m originally from Ukraine from Eastern Ukraine and town called. I came to us first as an exchange student then returned to Ukraine where I studied in college and worked in KF. Then I came back to the us for grad school at HKS where we’ve met then returned to Ukraine again shortly before the Euro revolution of 2013, 2014. And it was truly a privilege to be a part of those events and help with the reform efforts first working for the ministry of economy, and then becoming the CEO of ke of post, which was Ukraine’s English language, independent publication at the time. And then I moved back to the us in thousand 16 and had been working at the Institute for the study of war in very roles. One of which was leading Russia and Ukraine research program. I remained national security file S w and work at a technology company at my day job. And so I have been working in Russia since 2014 and various roles including in the field of open source intelligence and military analysis.
Joe Selvaggi:
So before we get it into that analysis you say your hometown is in Eastern Ukraine. It’s a very difficult place to live. I hope your your family and friends have found safety there.
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, thank you for asking. I was able to evacuate my grandparents. One of whom is disabled and my mom who are now in Europe but other members of my family are in Ukraine and some of them are still in, which is now experiencing heavy Shein by the Russian forces.
Joe Selvaggi:
I’m sorry to hear that. And I, I wish them well. Now I thought your at piece for the Institute for the study of war offered a, a superb understanding of how we got here with Putin. You know, he is a man who lives through the collapse of the Soviet union. And that I think helps inform our understanding of who this man is. I don’t wanna oversimplify the thesis of your work, how we got here with Russia. But by my reading I’m gonna, I’m gonna paraphrase and then ask you to embellish a little on this. I would say Putin’s view is is a deep resentment in the Russian loss of stature after the fall of the, of the Soviet union. He had a, has a nostalgia re return that the power of that empire, if you will. And he sees the west as an obstacle to that return to greatness and, and, and resents the us and, and the west for that take us through the thesis of your research and, and, and it, it, it more or less shows an evolution from a fairly friendly post follow the Berlin wall, Russia, to where we are now with a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Take us through that arc of how we got here.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Sure. Look, I think Putin’s objectives have not really changed for years. They’ve always been the preservation of his regime efforts to restate Russia as a global and great power regain dominant influence over the former Soviets states and can us and neutralized NATO, I think regaining control over Ukraine remained a consistent goal for him for many years. And his intent when it comes to Ukraine is really independent of the west. And I think it’s a really key point. Us actions and NATO actions might have accelerated or dampen the Kremlin actions in some cases, but again, his goals Putins goals remain the same. And in fact, it’s really key to remember that the efforts to reintegrate. So, so that space have actually started even before Putin. It was president Yeltsin that who already adopted more assertive national security concept in 97, which include more paternalistic policy toward the forms of its states. So when it comes to Ukraine, you know, Putin tried to regain dominant influence through many means. First by trying to install political puppets, then through military intervention in 2014, and then through may any attempts to manipulate both Ukraine and the west into giving up Ukraine sovereignty essentially for the past eight years. And none of those efforts really worked. So put in kind of resorted to the last stool he had left from probably his perspective, which is a full, full on military offensive that he has launched last month.
Joe Selvaggi:
Oh, sorry. I wanted to, excuse me. I just wanted to get to the first point you made in that, that response, which is I think addressing some level of narrative here in the us that this rationale for this invasion of Ukraine was somehow precipitated by let’s say the accretion of states into NATO or the EU, in other words, as a response to what he saw was a slow threat to throw growing and, and ever closer threat from, from NATO or the us, you’re saying no independent of our act or NATOs actions or these actions Russia and Putin had designed on influencing neighbor states all along.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Correct. I do think that Western actions, once again served as an accelerator or, or Deener in some cases, but really the intent has the, and consistent for years. And I think it’s also really important to, to say that, you know, there was a brief period of Nonas assert foreign policy only for a few years in 1990s which I think many in the us believed have become the new norm, but in my assessment it was an anomaly because it was actually Ys Wright who reversed to, to the course of trying to be more istic towards the forms of its states already in late nineties. And couldn’t continued that trend in really award and in action for the next 20 years.
Joe Selvaggi:
Well, another simultaneous trend were those former Soviet states who I’d like to hear your opinion on that decided to look westward and, and either join EU or NATO. I don’t know what the count is. I believe eight or nine states that had been a Soviet satellite states now are members of NATO. Forgive me if this is a a naive question, why wouldn’t Russia be enticed to join the west, at least at some level rather than position itself, as in, in clear opposition,
Nataliya Bugayova:
The, the point about states joining the west and Russia’s argument about the fear of influence, right. That it deserves. First I was just like, would like to point out that I think this, this argument is inde defensible in many ways. You know, first the world, including Russia recognized Ukraine’s independence and independence of many former Soviet states in 1991. And no independent state should need to justify its existence. It’s foreign policy ambition, no matter how big or small it is. And you know, I think that’s point number one, point number two look, it was Russia’s and the Kremlin’s choice first and foremost to do so in part, because pus number one goal is preservation of his regime. And a lot of the I think Western values and rules are antithetical to his efforts to preserve his regime, which he does through Corion corruption and broadly authoritarian methods. So I think that’s actually the core reason why Russia, despite perhaps some of its ambitions to join the west has not because the model is antithetical to Kremlin’s model of regime preservation.
Joe Selvaggi:
So, so let’s focus now on your country, Ukraine which ha hasn’t joined the EU hasn’t joined NATO but clearly has gone from, let’s say a country, largely sympathetic to Russia and being a partner or a an ally of Russia to where we see now the, the brave of Vladimir Zelensky clearly with a Western focus, one who seems to aspire to the freedom and, and and the values of the west. How did we get from a, a country that was largely Russian, like to one that seems to be leaning strongly westward?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Sure. Look, I think Ukraine’s, and Russia’s path has started to diverge actually shortly after the Soviet union collapse and divide has never been actually about ethnicity and language. And I can tell you that as a, you know, originally Russian speaking Ukrainian the core divide has been always about the way of life. And the origin revolution off to south and four was the first clear indication that Ukraine went, did to evolve, to be the country with rights and rules. And the 2014 revolution was of course the pivotal moment. And again, the choice was not primarily about the west or the east. It was about whether to become a police state like Russia or not. And may in Ukraine made that choice in 2014 and, and some, you know, paid the ultimate price. And I was part of the events on, you know, on neuro down in thousand 14. And it’s worth noting that Ukraine has been the only country in the form of its space that has had legitimate con consecutive presidential elections, and the only country that had free media, no matter how limited but nevertheless free and, you know, no matter the issues. And of course the known issue with the corruption. I think the trajectory has been for years much before Lansky kind of toward a free year or state.
Joe Selvaggi:
Now you, you mentioned so that, that it’s this divide dates back to the fall of the Soviet union. And it’s a, it’s a, it’s a argument of a difference between in values or aspirations for one’s country rule of law. Now you, you made reference to, I, I believe it’s called the Euro Maden, a revolution in Ukraine and Russia did not sit by idly and, and watch this happen. In fact, of course the Russia did invade portions of Ukraine back in 2014, say more about what you think the motive was for that. Was that something as a, as a sort of a, a Sabre rattling, or was this a a long slow design on actually taking over Ukraine in the long run?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah. Great question. Look, I think first Ukraine’s freedom aspirations that were expressed very clearly in 2014, the it pose a threat from Putin’s perspective to Russian his regime precisely because the democratic model in the former Soviet its space can both, you know, endanger Putin’s regime, but show in Russian’s an alternative, but also in danger Putins project to integrate the other states in the forms of its space into kind of Russia dominated frameworks. I think in my assessment least was planned long before 2015, given the speed with which was, it was executed. I putting use the opportune moment essentially when there was a weakness in Ukrainian governance after shortly after the Euro revolution to both cease crime and launch military invasion in DOAs, I think it’s also were noting that again, as in many cases, the goal us to control Ukraine and to control its decision making. What Russia tried to do for the subsequent eight years is to use the illegal self reclaimed, you know, DNR and LR republics in Eastern Ukraine, and try to insert them in Ukrainian governance system with the, with no success. So once again the goal always been and always remained control and in 2014, Russia saw an opportunity to go for portions of Ukraine, essentially militarily, I think again, CIA was planned long before 2014.
Joe Selvaggi:
So okay. The it’s now that we’ve got a, a good history lesson up to current times now, of course we have to talk about a a war. Now Ukraine is roughly the size of Texas, an enormous country with 44 million inhabitants. One does not need to be a a student of the study of war to know that to quell a, a population of that size you would need at a substantial force as one who studies war it seems that that that force was woefully inadequate for the job. Is this mistake attributable to the idea that Putin had perhaps thought Ukraine would be let’s say less resistant to deliberate invasion.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah, great question. I mean, Putin has made several substantial miscalculation in his war effort and, you know, while he will and can recalibrate, I think several issues cannot be quickly undressed. And one of those is that fact that currently yet get misunderstood Ukraine. I think Russia miscalculated local sentiment in 2014. When if you recall, Russia wanted to take six regions of Ukraine, at least in 2014 and managed to secure only two portions of two regions in part, because it had actually miscalculated loyalties on the ground resistance and the sentiment. And it seems that ye eight years after despite the fact that Ukraine has been openly building up its defenses with Western support, the Kremlin has seemed not to have learned that lesson and shown that it does not still MIS understand Ukraine’s military capability or popular sentiment, including what’s really important. And among Russian speaking population, because right now the military action is happening in law part in east and south of Ukraine. And I think in part because Putin and then Kremlin has always assigned very little agency to Ukraine, a classical I think Imperial or great power mistake. And I think it accounts for some of the miscalculation, I think in addition to that, it also, just to me, a bigger problem of analytical reporting chain within Kremlin that might be broken.
Joe Selvaggi:
So you, you had mentioned agency Ukraine has a considerable amount of agency here. They’re putting up a hell of a fight. As someone who’s become a world celebrity in this process has been the president Zelensky he’s winning the public opinion, battle hands down. He’s been, I suppose, compared to even a, a Winston Churchill for our time. Do you see the fight that the Ukrainians are putting up, particularly, as you say, it’s, it’s even the Russian speaking Eastern Ukrainians are putting up a hell of fight. Is this owed to his inspiration and leadership, you think any reasonable leader in that position w would, would still see and still be leading a, a a fiercely resistant Ukrainian population?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No. Great question. Look, I think he is doing a fantastic job. However, I think Ukrainians have well sort pass dependence on one leader and it’s really important to highlight. And you know, even during your, my Don revolution of 2014, there was no one leader on my Don. It was a lot of self organizing, self driven effort at the grassroots level. And similarly, when Russian forces lunch and intervention in south 14, Ukraine actually didn’t have military or army at that point practically. And it was a lot of just local volunteers who went to, to the front line and fought at the time when Ukraine even didn’t have a president. So I think w landscape without the fight will continue though. He’s certainly I think an inspiration figure for many in the world during this time.
Joe Selvaggi:
So let’s get into the on the ground. Again, you’re a student of the study of war. What’s the current military situation on the ground here on day 20.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Sure. A couple of quick points first, you know, put into original plan to seize Ukraine in a matter of days has failed. Russia has not established air or ground superiority yet. And this is despite billion dollars of investment, you know, years of military reform combat experience, Russia forces seem to be failing at basic operational art. I think Ukraine Ukraine’s military, but also the whole population, including once again, Russian speakers are fighting Russia. Wasn’t able to take a single major city for several days early in, in the war, but it has shifted its approach and is now essentially trying to inflict maximum costs in humanitarian costs and trying to level and bomb the city’s and such a level them to the ground. And we have many documented incidents of targeting civilians, and I think this is how Russia has continued to advance its ground forces very slowly, but under this umbrella of of an air campaign.
Joe Selvaggi:
So it seems like it’s screeching into something, a kind to a Stal mate. I’m not sure we’re there yet. It looks like Russia continues to, to advance albeit slowly. Where do you see this military campaign heading and what, what key events are you watching for?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, for sure. Look, the, the outcome is not written from my perspective, the whole country’s emerging to defend Ukraine on one side Russia on the other will likely regroup and renew its offensive. Pushing can throw more capability at Ukraine. And there is some capability that he still has in his escalation letter. Russia also has information dominance over Russia’s domestic information space, which allows it to spin the war in favorable light. However, there’s several challenges for the Kremlin, but also several risks for Ukraine that I’m watching, you know, first Kremlin means substantial miscalculation and, and its war effort and someone which can not be fixed quickly, like understanding Ukraine or, you know, Russian military struggling with basic operational art. I think putting also to risks by deploying significant portion of Russia’s ground forces, which he probably did not intend to use in full into Ukraine their massive logistical issues.
Nataliya Bugayova:
And I think the key question is can Russia establish reliable supply chains so far? It hasn’t, but that’s one thing. I think we’re watching and as food and stretches out further into Ukraine, the logistics will get harder. I think mobilization is also tricky for put in, in part, because I think he realized he doesn’t have his full base in line. We see Russia’s efforts to try to engage militaries of, you know, Ballo or calling for Syrians or today. There were some reports that unconfirmed that Russia is asking for Chinese aid in this fight, I think it’s in part actually sign of weakness and, and the fact that his efforts at home are not going well. I think two more things on Ukraine side that that we are watching that are really important first, you know, ki is Russia’s biggest effort and Ukraine’s main risk. It can change the trajectory of war, even though Russia taking ki will not end this war. I think second is also Russia’s efforts in the south of Ukraine where it had gained the most ground, even though slower than I think we forecasted but Russia’s efforts to gain foothold in the south and then, and circle Ukraine’s forces in the east is another thing that I’m watching
Joe Selvaggi:
The Ukraine is it seemed to do something done the impossible, which is unite all Americans behind a cause. And I’m sure our listeners are thinking right now, my gosh, you know, is there anything that could be done for this cause you had compiled a list of some of the things you recommend vetted, vetted organizations that are making a real contribution to Ukrainians cause. But for those listeners who have skills who have resources who perhaps even medical or military resources, what can our listeners do to help improve Ukraine’s likely positive outcome?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, absolutely. And I talk to a lot of my American friends and many have said that they felt hopeless in a way, but I think there are a lot of things that regular citizens and organizations can do. I’ll name just a couple first. I actually think it’s really important to maintain the issue in the news and maintain the spotlight of the issue and joining rallies calling representatives to demand military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine reading verified sources of information, and actually trying to reach out for those who have friends inside of Russia and balls and trying to break that blockade inform blockade. Andre is trying to keep, you know, its population in the dark is, is actually really important. I think, additionally look, this war will be in part determined by logistics and ability to send a humanitarian and military systems at scale is actually really, really critical Ukraine.
Nataliya Bugayova:
You know, armed forces are several thousands of people and then, you know, they’re supported by territorial defense and then they’re supported by the population. But if we have, you know, millions of people around the world supporting them, it actually gives Ukraine a chance. So humanitarian aid through organizations like Graza or Nova Ukraine and you can share the list of the vetted organization that I compiled is, is really important. And there are also already ways to send medical and other aid directly to Ukraine from in the US. Which, you know, now that some of the supply chains are, are established I think final one I mention is there’s a lot to do also for businesses and organizations from kind of walking the walk on the ESG and divesting from Russia, but also keeping a lot of businesses accountable especially those who operate in Russia, but separately just sending supplies to Ukraine at scale, again, it’s time for big moves. People there refugees and people inside of Ukraine, they need basic stuff, right? Mobility, vehicles, fuel pharmaceuticals how housing modular homes and things like that. So I think there are plenty of ways that people at individual and organizational level can support.
Joe Selvaggi:
Now, you study war, we established that. Let’s talk about a different topic which is peace. I know there’s been several attempts by both countries to discuss terms of ending the fighting in your view, knowing both sides as well as anyone what might be the terms under which both sides might be able to accept a truce or perhaps declare victory and end this?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah, it’s a, it’s a challenging question in part, because there have been peace talks for the past eight years and Russia had many opportunities to establish peace and I just think peace was never a goal control, always been at the goal. The problem is the way that put in frame this invasion essentially stating that Ukraine is not a country and that he aims to, you know, with Russia’s false narrative, as well as the brutality of Kremlin’s military campaign in Ukraine and just horrific civilian target of civilians and the casualties and the humanitarian catastrophe that we are observing. Just make, I think peace talks very unlikely at this, at this point, at least precisely because Putin made it very clear that he will take nothing less than Ukraine sovereignty and Ukraine made it very clear that it would, it would not stop fighting. So I think at this point I do not see a plausible middle ground, but situation can change as a military situation on the ground evolves.
Joe Selvaggi:
It seems that again, Putin has staked his, I dare say his life, his reputation on this, on this war. He’s up for reelection in 2024, as someone who studies Russia and Putin and the dynamics in, in the Kremlin does this war at least as we can see it now improve or, or diminish his likelihood of being reelected if you can call it that within Russia.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah. So, look, first of all, Ukraine is not the only issue at stake for putting in this war. His regime is and actually, so is the project to reintegrate. Former Soviet union states is on, on a line. You know, we see in Russia’s efforts to really pull in ball fully into this conflict. And Russia has regained control over Belarus over the past year, but still conventional be Russia forces have not materially entered the conflict and, you know, Kazakhstan refused to provide soldiers to Russia at least. So I think there’s many things that at stake for him, I think 20, 24, it’s too far away at this point to, to make that assessment just given how much you put on the line. I would also say that look you asked should not anticipate that Russia’s foreign policy will automatically change when Putin’s term ants, whatever that might be an under whatever circumstance that might happen. Unfortunately I think Putin approach will most likely outlast him at least partially. And that is by design.
Joe Selvaggi:
Oh, that’s unfortunate. Well I think we’re running out of time. I think we’ll have to leave it there. Where can our listeners find your work at the Institute for the study of war?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, absolutely. I think rush team ATW is doing phenomenal work covering the conflict and publishing daily updates on Ukraine crisis and the map, and big shout out to my colleagues, Mason Clark and Joe and Catarina w and you can follow three of them on Twitter, but also just go into the understanding war.org for daily updates.
Joe Selvaggi:
Indeed, I’ve been following those and they’re quite informative. It’s, it’s terrifying, but it’s what, we’re what we’re living through right now. So I just want to say a big thank you for joining us in the middle of a war within your country with your family, your friends, your loved ones. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to join us here on Hubwonk. Thank you.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Thank you. And thanks for having me.
Joe Selvaggi:
This has been another episode of Hubwonk. If you enjoyed today’s episode, there are several ways to support the show. It would be easier for you and better for us. If you subscribe to hub won in your iTunes podcast, catcher, if you wanna help, make it easier for others to find Hubwonk, it would be great if you offer a five star rating or a favorable review, we’re always grateful. If you share Hubwonk with friends, if you have ideas or comments or suggestions for me for future episode topics, you’re welcome to email me hubwonk@pioneerinstitute.org. Please join me next week for a new episode of Hubwonk.
Related Posts:
In Massachusetts, the Know-Nothing amendments prevent more than 100,000 urban families with children in chronically underperforming school districts from receiving scholarship vouchers that would allow them access to additional educational alternatives. These legal barriers, also known as Blaine amendments, restrict government funding from flowing to religiously affiliated organizations in nearly 40 states and are a violation of the first and fourteenth amendments.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case this year, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, that could end these amendments. In 2018, Pioneer produced a 30-minute documentary on the impact of the Blaine amendments on families in Massachusetts, Georgia, and Michigan.
“She’s a good girl. She helps me a lot. She has big, big dreams. I don’t have the money, but she has big dreams. I hope she’s going to get everything, but she works so hard. She works so hard in school.”
“Our family is needing to make some really big sacrifices because we believe this is important, and so, we’re basically going to do whatever it takes… Sometimes we look at each other and go ‘I don’t know if I can do it again another month…’”
“A lot of the families have to sacrifice and work multiple jobs… And just scraping together enough money to just make tuition, just the basics.”
“It is discriminatory, that parents who want to choose an alternative to public school for their children, would not in any way receive any compensation for that, whether it be tax credit, whether it be a voucher…”
In the 1840s, nativist movement leaders formed official political parties and local chapters of the national Native American Party (later the American Party), although they continued to be commonly known as the Know-Nothing Party. Politicians sought to insert provisions into state constitutions against Catholics who refused to renounce the pope. The Know-Nothing movement brought bigotry and hatred to a new level of violence and organization.
The party’s legacy endured in the post-Civil War era, with laws and constitutional amendments it supported, still today severely limiting parents’ educational choices. A federal constitutional amendment was proposed by Speaker of the House James Blaine prohibiting money raised by taxation in any State to be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations. These were then named the Blaine Amendments of 1875.
in recent decades, often in response to challenges to school choice programs, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated great interest in examining the issues of educational alternatives and attempts limit parental options. Massachusetts plays a key role in this debate. The Bay State was a key center of the Know-Nothing movement and has the oldest version of Anti-Aid Amendments in the nation, as well as a second such amendment approved in 1917. Two-fifths of Massachusetts residents are Catholic, and its Catholic schools outperform the state’s public schools, which are the best in the nation.
Help families like the Costons in Michigan to end the bigoted Blaine amendments in their state that are blocking tuition scholarships and other types of financial support that would make it possible for families to send their children to high-quality schools that are best suited for their children.
[ytp_video source=”uN8dMHYzofA”]
SHARE THIS STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
This week on JobMakers, host Denzil Mohammed talks with Dr. Avak Kahvejian, an inventor, entrepreneur and CEO as well as general partner at Flagship Pioneering, a life sciences venture capital company in Cambridge, Massachusetts. For generations, his family was forced to flee from genocide in what was then Armenia (now eastern Turkey), to Syria, Lebanon, and then to Montreal, Canada, via the U.K., and finally, by choice, to Boston. His risk-taking, persistence, and ambition drove him to a place where people from all over the world come to innovate, ideate, and create: the United States. America has always attracted this kind of person, and that’s what has made it into the powerhouse it is today. As Avak cautions, if that well were to run dry, the result would be disastrous for all of us, as you’ll learn in this week’s JobMakers.
Guest
Avak Kahvejian, Ph.D. is a life sciences inventor, entrepreneur, and CEO. Since 2011, he has been a partner at Flagship Pioneering, where he leads a team to invent and launch new therapeutic platforms. His work has led to the creation of multiple high-value public and private companies including Seres Therapeutics; Rubius Therapeutics; Codiak BioSciences; Cygnal Therapeutics; Ring Therapeutice; Cellarity; Laronde; and Generate Biomedicines. Prior to Flagship, Avak was Vice President of Business Development at Helicos BioSciences, where he developed and commercialized the world’s first single molecule DNA sequencer. He serves on the board of the International Institute of New England, an institution which creates opportunities for refugees and immigrants to succeed through resettlement, education, career advancement and pathways to citizenship. From 2014 to 2020, he served on the board of the Canadian Entrepreneurs of New England, an organization dedicated to assisting Canadian entrepreneurs build ties with the Boston life sciences and technology ecosystems. Avak earned his Ph.D. and B.Sc. in Biochemistry from McGill University in Montreal, Canada.
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
Denzil Mohammed:
I’m Denzil Mohammed. Welcome to Jobmakers.
Denzil Mohammed:
The kinds of people who choose to migrate are typically a special kind of people, risk taking ambitious determined for those who are forced to migrate. These qualities are really forced upon them as they have no choice, but take the risk to make something of themselves, what results you can find in countries like the United States, Canada and Germany, places where people migrate to robust economies, hubs of innovation, inherently entrepreneurial for Dr. Avak Kahvejian, an inventor, entrepreneur and CEO, as well as general partner at flagship pioneering, a life sciences venture capital company, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he’s seen both types of migration and both kinds of risk taking success for generations. He Armenian family was forced to move from what was then Armenia now, Eastern Turkey to Syria, to flee genocide then to Lebanon, then to Montreal Canada, by the UK fleeing civil war. And finally, by choice to Boston, that risk taking persistence and ambition drove him to a place where people from all over the world could come to innovate, ideate and create the United States. This country has always attracted this kind of person making it into the powerhouse it is today. And so of our cautions, if that well were to run dry, the result would be disastrous for all of us. As you learn in this week’s Jobmakers. Avak Kahvejian,
Denzil Mohammed:
A general partner at Flagship Pioneering, welcome to the Jobmakers podcast. How are you?
Avak Kahvejian:
Good, thank you for having me.
Denzil Mohammed:
So tell me a little bit about the work that you do.
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, I work at Flagship Pioneering, which is a company creation firm. It’s an innovation firm and we focus primarily on the life sciences in terms of making new biotechnology companies that are going to develop new therapies or new solutions for sustainability. Whether that’s in the nutrition space or the agricultural space. I lead a team here at, at Flagship that is mandated to I idea and invent new platform technologies. And those platform technologies become the basis for a new, and they develop products over time. And I’ve been doing this now for 10 years.
Denzil Mohammed:
So give us a sense of some of the companies that you’ve helped bring to market.
Avak Kahvejian:
So they are quite diverse. Over the years, I’ve had the pleasure and honor of working on some really cool companies. Some that your audience may know, and some of course, that they will, they’ve never heard of. The, one of the first projects that I got involved with was Moderna. And as now you all know they ended up creating one of the best and, and only vaccines for the, the coronavirus. So that’s one example of a platform technology, meaning a technology that can be used for many, many different things, having the ability in one company to design it, to make it, to apply it, and then to think about different ways of using it is really the model. It’s the archetype of, of what we do. And these are more, more or less chronological is Rubus a company that had the, to make red blood cells in a lab.
Avak Kahvejian:
So kind of like in a factory and to make them therapeutic, to make them medicinal. And so how can you grow artificial quote, unquote, blood in a, in a, in a VAT, but also endow the blood with the therapeutic properties. And you can imagine there’s a range of things you can do with that. And they have trials now for combating cancer. And those trials are, are, are really underway as we speak and a variety of other companies of that ilk, new gene therapies, new nucleic acid therapies like, like Moderna and and, and new discovery platforms that are going to generate the next wave of, of medicinal products.
Denzil Mohammed:
That is absolutely remarkable. And might I add that the, the teams that you’re talking about that form, these companies are extremely diverse and you’re an immigrant from Canada and they’re immigrants all around in this space. You’ve also been active in the nonprofit space, the Canadian entrepreneurs in new of new England, the St. Stephens Armenian elementary school. And much of this clearly is connected to your family’s history of migration. Can you walk us through your family’s journey, starting with your at grandparents?
Avak Kahvejian:
Yeah, so I don’t have all the dates on hand, but in, during the, the genocide that the Turks perpetrated against the Armenians in 1915, my family was very well established in the Western Armenia or what is known as Eastern Turkey in a town called now I think it’s called Sanliurfa, and they were a prominent family there owned a lot of property and, and farmland and during the genocide they had to escape the, the, in, during the, the genocide, the, the mandate was for the Turkish army to either either kill or forced migrate Armenians out of those territories. But what happened was it caused a dispersion of Armenians across the world. My family didn’t go very far. They went to Syria and established themselves there. And then from Syria migrated to Beirut Lebanon and Beirut as you may know, was a, was a microcosm of many, many different cultures and religions, some very extreme differences in terms of Christianity and Islam, all coexisting together. And my parents were born in Beru and I was born in Beru. I had the unfortunate luck, I guess, of being born at the beginning of the civil war there where things started to really fall apart. And that was in 1975, practically carrying me out in a hand basket. We, we moved to London, England, and then as a stopover, and then eventually to Montreal Canada to, to establish ourselves there.
Denzil Mohammed:
And then you ended up here, luckily not by by force, but by choice for the first time in your family’s history. I mean, that’s absolutely remarkable. And these are the stories that, that, you know, people on the street American go, Americans just don’t know that that fall behind you as an entrepreneur, you as an immigrant. So I saw a video of you on YouTube, where you said an immigrant and an entrepreneur are very much the same. Can you explain that to our American audience?
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, yeah, I think there are, are elements of, of starting a company, having an idea, building that company that are very much akin to moving to a new land and trying to essentially find oneself and establish oneself in, in, in that new land. And so as think those are the, those, those experiences both have similarities in what they do to your mind and what they do to your emotions. Just think of yourself as you travel, even as a tourist to another country and the heightened sense of awareness you have from the moment you, you step off the plane is very different from that the sense of heightened awareness you have when you’re walking down the street in your own neighborhood. And, and, and that’s very much kind of the beginning of the entrepreneurial journey. You’re putting yourself in a situation where you need to figure things out.
Avak Kahvejian:
You need to understand who’s who what’s what, and you need to figure out what your next steps are to move forward. That’s, that’s very, very similar to what an immigrant experiences when they come to a new land, now, let alone doing it when you are under duress, let alone doing it when you are doing it by force, as you said, and not necessarily by choice the heightened sense of the heightened sense of awareness and the heightened sense of urgency, you have to survive and thrive. Assimilation involves not simply melting into the, the, the broader hole, which is how we often look at it like, oh, you have to assimilate into this new society. Well, it’s not, it’s not exactly the right definition for the word. If I look up the definition, it says, number one, under assimilation is take in information, ideas, or culture and understand it fully.
Avak Kahvejian:
So that’s actually the, the subject is you taking in the information and understanding it fully. So I think an entrepreneur does exactly that when they first set out to do stuff is figure out situation that their company is trying to disrupt the, the environment that their company’s going to operate in. They need to be consummate learners, a simulators of information and integrators of information, not simply melt in to the status quo, but they need to take it in and understand it so that then they can act on it. And I think that’s exactly what an immigrant has to do. They don’t necessarily simply have to lose their identity and melt into it, but they need to take in the, they need to take in the information and the culture around them and understand it fully.
Denzil Mohammed:
And, and there’s no safety net, right? It’s a risk. And you, you just have, you have, have no choice, but to just forge ahead with it, whether you, you succeed or fail that’s a very, very interesting way of putting that comparison. So 17 years ago, you were that immigrant moving to the Boston area from Montreal, fresh out of your PhD program at McGilI. Did you feel welcomed in the biotech ecosystem here? You know, obviously coming from a country like Canada, which is extremely diverse and depends on immigration, what did you think of the diversity here? Did it, did it help the ecosystem?
Avak Kahvejian:
The, the, the biotech ecosystem here is actually one of the most diverse industries probably that, that I’ve ever seen and it’s become not only an epicenter in the United States, it’s an epicenter for the world and maybe the epicenter for the world. So you have if you see it like a country, it’s a country in and of itself, that is attracting a lot of immigrants. The biotech community here is, and also has, embassies almost, I would call them where companies where countries have actually sent emissaries here to learn about the ecosystem and have a permanent presence here.
Denzil Mohammed:
The second part of that question is that diversity important. And did, does that help the ecosystem?
Avak Kahvejian:
Definitely. most definitely. Now, obviously there, it, it, there’s some uniformity to it in that world. We’re kind of a worldwide community or worldwide tribe of scientists. So many, many of the people coming here come with, again, advanced degrees in, in the Biosciences and have been trained by top academic institutions throughout the world. But at the same time, everyone’s coming with a diverse training with diverse background and bringing new perspectives to, to, to tackling the, the big challenges that we’re trying to tackle. These are not easy problems to, to solve. These are not simply building something in a very predetermined way, in a very a predictable way. There is a lot of uncertainty to what we do in every single endeavor in biotech, virtually every single one. There’s a lot of serendipity involved. A lot of problem solving required a lot of creativity and ingenuity required perpetually and without diverse opinions, diverse backgrounds, interdisciplinary problem solving, we wouldn’t achieve half of what we we achieve. So definitely we need, we need, we need the world applied to, to, to these problems, not just a small group of people or a small group of uniform people to tackle them.
Denzil Mohammed:
And the proof is literally all around you in Cambridge, Moderna, Pfizer companies that are founded by people from all over the place, including the United States. And we have these vaccines. We have these therapeutics, we have, we are advancing our technologies. The data show clearly that immigrants are more likely to study and work in stem. This is just, this is just how it is. And therefore, you know, there’s a great value of H1B, foreign trained workers in the us who are in the stem in stem industries. If you were to give us a suggestion, like, what do you think should be done in the us to address the shortage of American stem workers?
Avak Kahvejian:
We definitely need to make it easier for scientists to come here and to work here because it, it, it can only enrich the intellectual diversity. It can only accelerate the advancement of knowledge and and innovation that we are, are really striving for. And, and as we saw with the pandemic innovation invention and, and advanced advanced technologies are what’s going to help human man overcome major challenges. And, and we can’t sit still. So we’ve experienced the difficulty in bringing scientists from other other countries, even though they have advanced degrees, even though they’ve even demonstrated an and a willingness to come here and contribute. And I, and those barriers have to be those barriers have to come down for sure,
Denzil Mohammed:
In a recent episode of this podcast, I was talking to a son of Dominican immigrants who started a cybersecurity firm. And he said there are 600,000 job openings in, in this field going forward. I mean, that’s just staggering. So I’m bringing it back to something that we mentioned earlier, which is your nonprofit involvement. You’ve stood on the boards of several, including the Armenian schooling Watertown. Now you’re chairman of the board of the international Institute of new England. For those of you who don’t know the international Institute, resettles refugees and creates opportunities for immigrants and refugees to succeed through career advancement pathways to citizenship, et cetera. Why is this work important to you?
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, as, as an immigrant and an immigrant, who’s had it easy. I think I’ve always wanted to figure out a way to give back to to, to immigrants. And, and as we call them new Americans, how do we, how do we help new Americans make a life for themself here? Especially some of those who have not been as fortunate as I have been to land here willingly and to lend here with a, an existing safety net or an existing lending pad. And, and so that’s been really my motivation for, for doing that. Now, again, I play a really small part in the, at the I E as, as chairman of the board, we have really an, an amazing team of people there who, who do everything from the minute someone lands here, a refugee lands here in the United States to finding them housing, helping them get a job, helping them learn the language and to situate themselves, filling their pantries.
Avak Kahvejian:
So they have food and, and, and clothing that work is, is, is a Herculean task and only is only the beginning O of the journey. And so far it’s been, it’s been quite heartwarming and, and amazing to see the outpouring of support we’ve gotten from, from individual donors, from corporate sponsors. And in particular, some of the, the, the, the pillars of industry here in Boston namely the biotech community, the tech community, and the financial services I think especially the biotech community, they appreciate how diversity matters, how it impacts society and how it impacts their business. And they’ve been very generous and, and long term support for what we do.
Denzil Mohammed:
And might I just add refugees come from, not the places that the biggest immigrants sending countries come from, and they’re all over the place, Burma sorry, Myanmar Iraq, Afghanistan the Congo Sudan all these even Ukraine. And so it’s a, it’s a much more difficult task when you have to cater to such culturally linguistically socially different populations. So you talked about new Americans and the idea of the international Institute of course, is to welcome and sustain these families reflecting on your own story and the work that you’ve been doing, explain to audience why the idea of welcoming or being a welcoming or inclusive country is important.
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, if you reflect back on the history of the United States and the history of Canada for that matter, I think what, what makes north America so special? And I think what has one of the things that has contributed to the tremendous amount of success and growth and, and peace and prosperity that we’ve, we’ve benefited from here is that notion of welcoming and including and recruiting people from throughout the world to making, to making, to creating these societies, building these economies. And I, I, I see it firsthand. I felt it firsthand. I see it firsthand, not only in my own experience, but in, in my, in my everyday work as an entrepreneur. And I see it from a historical perspective the, the waves of immigrants and the injection of new ideas, new cultures, new products these things have come from a lot of it have come from the outside and have, have been given the fertile ground here to, to, to flourish.
Avak Kahvejian:
And so I think it’s that amazing alchemy and combination that makes, makes, makes these, these countries so special. And we don’t want to lose that. I, I think there, there is something that we shouldn’t take for granted and that if we do turn off the spigot or constrain it significantly, I think we might not feel it in the near term. People might complain that they don’t have enough workers for particular jobs, et cetera, but I think in the long term, it’ll be even more, more dramatic, more drastic. The impacts will be, will be multi-generational. And, and we have to be mindful of that. So I, I, I, I think we, we should celebrate what, what we’ve accomplished here over, over the, the, the centuries and, and over the last few decades. But there’s obviously more work to do and more opportunity and I’m really glad to be part of it.
Denzil Mohammed:
And again, the proof is all around us. Look at our economy. We’re the biggest economy in the world because we have this constant injection of entrepreneurship and persistence and ideation. And that goes hand in hand with, with welcoming people Avak Kahvejian, general partner at Flagship Pioneering and immigrant from Canada. Thank you so much for joining us on JobMakers.
Avak Kahvejian:
Thank you. It, it was a pleasure. And an honor
Denzil Mohammed:
Jobmakers is a weekly podcast about immigrant entrepreneurship and contribution produced by Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston and the Immigrant Learning Center in Malden, Massachusetts, a not-for-profit that gives immigrants a voice. Thanks for joining us for this week’s incredible story of immigrant entrepreneurship. Remember, you can subscribe to Jobmakers and apple podcast, Spotify over wherever you get your podcasts. And please leave us a review. I’m Denzil Mohammed. See you next Thursday at noon for another JobMakers.
Recent Episodes:
This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Charles Moore, a columnist for The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator, and the authorized, three-volume biographer of Lady Margaret Thatcher. Lord Moore explains why Lady Thatcher is considered the most important female political figure of the 20th century, and reviews the challenges she faced at home and abroad, from trade union strikes to high inflation rates and political discord. They talk about Prime Minister Thatcher partnering with American President Ronald Reagan and standing in solidarity with Poland’s Lech Walesa to face down Soviet communism. Lord Moore describes her middle-class background and a leadership style that led to her 12-year tenure as prime minister in the male-dominated arena of British politics (including nearly 700 sessions of the world-renowned Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons). They also discuss “Thatcherism,” her foundational economic principles and their applicability to other domestic policy topics, as well as lessons for today’s world. The interview concludes with Lord Moore reading from his biography of Lady Thatcher.
Stories of the Week: Attorneys general from 14 states are suing the Biden administration over the Department of Justice’s calls to monitor parental protests at school board meetings. In Alabama, a group is seeking to address the teacher shortage by suspending the requirement to pass a Praxis content mastery exam.
Guest
Charles Moore is currently a columnist of The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator. He was editor in chief of The Spectator, (1984-90); The Sunday Telegraph, (1992-95); and The Daily Telegraph, (1995-2003). Lord Moore is the authorized biographer of Lady Margaret Thatcher, published in three volumes, Margaret Thatcher: From Grantham to the Falklands, (2013); Margaret Thatcher: At Her Zenith – In London, Washington, and Moscow, (2015); and Margaret Thatcher: Herself Alone, (2019). The first volume won the Elizabeth Longford Prize for Historical Biography, the HW Fisher Best First Biography Prize, and Political Book of the Year at the Paddy Power Political Book Awards. In July 2020, Moore was appointed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to the House of Lords, with the title Lord Moore of Etchingham. He was educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he read history. In 2007, he was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Letters from the University of Buckingham.
The next episode will air on Weds., March 23rd, with Dr. Arthur Levine, a scholar with New York University’s Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy, a senior fellow and president emeritus of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, and president emeritus of Columbia University’s Teachers College.
Tweet of the Week
School districts risk losing existing superintendent talent and bypassing promising future leaders. Here are some key reasons why. https://t.co/r9GBQ55mNB
— Education Week (@educationweek) March 14, 2022
News Links
AGs sue Biden administration over DOJ’s call to investigate protesting parents
Alabama officials consider suspending Praxis teacher test requirement
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
[00:00:00] Cara: Hello, everybody. Welcome to The Learning Curve. This is Cara Candal here with the great Gerard Robinson, Gerard, how you doing today? [00:01:00] Well, I’ve been having some tech issues. Gerard, I don’t like
[00:01:04] computers.
[00:01:08] Cara: Listeners might hear that I’m going to have any problems with the microphone, the computer. And I think I would rather just go outside on this beautiful day, go for a run or something like that.
[00:01:19] But no, here we are. And we’ve got a wonderful guest today, Gerard, and lots to talk about what’s going on in your world. What are you thinking about?
[00:01:30] GR: Well, one I’m enjoying the weather. So it was going to be 70 degrees here in Charlottesville. So that’s always a good thing. And I put that in context because it snowed on Saturday in Charlottesville yesterday.
[00:01:40] It’s snow. So that’s part one in terms of what I’m thinking about. I am just shocked by high. Attention. One of the issues that I think is really important is getting a lot of other issues, national, international going on, but this is something to do with our schools. So my article is from The Center Square.
[00:01:59] And [00:02:00] it’s by Bethany Blankley. And it’s about the fact that 14 attorneys generals are suing the bike administration over the department of justice has call to investigate parents who were protesting the school boards. So we know that last fall that trying to general Garland had testified before Congress, a number of parents felt threatened.
[00:02:22] School teachers, board members, and other educators felt threatened by what they saw as real protests against group race theory and other issues. What we know as this stuff is taking place. The national school board association center letter dated September 29th to the Biden administration, opposing the parents who were critical of certain issues, referring to the parent protesters as
[00:02:47] domestic terrorists. This of course raised a lot of contention amongst educators across the board. And six months later 14 attorneys general mostly from red states, including [00:03:00] Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah saying that they have requested from DOJ, be a FOIA request information about the.
[00:03:16] In protests and threats against educators. And they’re saying at this point they had yet to receive any new information or confirmation. In fact, if there is a spike, well, why is this information still important? Well, earlier this month school board became one of 21 states that separate tied with national school board association over the domestic terrorism comment is worth noting that the national school board association, in fact, stepped away from that statement and address.
[00:03:46] But still, there are a number of states that said, we just don’t think this makes sense. And so 21 and seven ties number of them are red states, but you also have blue states like Wisconsin who’s in there also Minnesota, [00:04:00] Pennsylvania. In addition to the 21 states that have separate ties, you also have 29 states that have distanced themselves, including blue states, such as Delaware.
[00:04:11] And so this continues to move forward. It is not a big issue. I think it should be. We use words like that. It just really raises a lot of questions. And at least from my read of what the attorney generals are asking, they’re seeing this also through the lens of free speech rights that parents should have an opportunity and having.
[00:04:31] To voice their opinions. Now in voicing your opinion, I surely don’t support threats of any type violence school board members. That’s not the issue, but I will do have two questions. At least it’d be interesting, not for you to answer per se, but just for our listeners. Number one, why aren’t there any attorney generals from blue states, a part of this lawsuit and number two, why haven’t more states separate times?
[00:04:57] With national school board association seems to be [00:05:00] more way upstate. So this very well could be able to wear parts and piece but we see those things happen. And it’s also worth noting that this has gone both ways. Remember when Secretary Paige was the leader of department of education under the Bush administration he had referred to in the conversation.
[00:05:16] Two teachers’ unions as domestic terrorists. And that happened as well. And so this is going on both sides, but the fact that this is not getting the kind of attention that it should, and the fact that they have to lease attorney generals have to sue the Biden administration, DOJ, secretary of it to get information.
[00:05:34] So then we can actually find out if in fact there are more spikes or not at least to be sure.
[00:05:40] Cara: So you bring up two points that come to my mind. The first is that it feels to me like a lot of folks are severing ties with the national school board association. I don’t know, but we should get some, data on that because it sounds like that organization has been having a tough time all around for many [00:06:00] reasons.
[00:06:00] But the other thing that I think you touched on. Is listen, I don’t personally agree with a lot of what’s been going on at some of these school board meetings, surrounding curriculum, et cetera. However, That said, what I do agree with completely is number one parent’s rights. And I’m glad that people are showing up at school board meetings because lots of times they don’t especially pre pandemic.
[00:06:24] Right. But parents’ rights to know parents’ rights to ask questions. Parents’ rights to show up at school. Board meetings are so important. I don’t think we should be discouraging parents from that in any way, but where did we, as to your point on both sides, where did we. Utterly lose the ability to talk to one another civility, because I think that, on the one hand, yeah, the term domestic terrorist is to me, inning to use when you’re talking about parents, probably the vast majority of whom might have an elevated tone, but certainly aren’t domestic terrorists.
[00:06:56] Right. But then on the other hand, we have seen lots of [00:07:00] pictures and videos of school, board meetings where parents. Going in also unable to engage with school board members in a productive and civil way. So I think just writ large in our society, I’m worried about the extent to which we don’t seem to be able as a people to have civil conversations and maybe come to an agreement, which I think Gerard has led to.
[00:07:22] the product of which has been some of these more draconian laws that we’re seeing states trying to pass really hampering what teachers are able to say in the classroom. And so a totally different conversation and there are two sides to that story too. Especially how it’s been playing out in the media.
[00:07:41] But, I think. that you’re right on that this heightened level on both sides , of just in civil or uncivil in civil, what’s the word I’m looking for here? Gerard conversation is really at the root of this problem. Parents do have a right to. Uh, Schools are never going to be able to meet every parent’s single wish and [00:08:00] desire for what their kids experienced in the classroom and especially in our district schools that are larger.
[00:08:06] But parents absolutely , have a right to know. I just hope that on both sides parents and administrators in school boards can learn that. communicate with each other more civilly, because this is what you get. when we get this upset with one another, that’s a really tough issue, Gerard.
[00:08:20] And it’s one that I never thought we would be talking about on a podcast like this when we started it. But I can tell you that. My story the week, I’m really keen to get your take as a former secretary of education and a couple of different states, my friend, and this is about the state of Alabama, which I want to say.
[00:08:37] I think there’s a lot of good stuff going on in Alabama, this legislative session, they’re trying to get past some really productive school choice legislation, early literacy stuff. So shout out to Alabama. However, I have some questions about this next one, and this is. An article entitled Alabama officials consider suspending practice teacher test requirement.
[00:08:59] And this is [00:09:00] from education week. Now, Gerard, let me lead by saying for our listeners, many of you probably already know there’s really little evidence that teacher certification. Equals better teaching, right? There’s an practice being a certification test. a test that is used across multiple states for teacher certification purposes.
[00:09:17] And so the data on the relationship between teacher certification, these tests and successful teaching are scant, but. What we’re seeing in a lot of states, as you know, Gerard is this push to figure out how do we stem the bleeding of teachers from the profession? Although I read an article recently that said, it’s not as bad as we think.
[00:09:37] I think it’s that it’s worse in certain pockets to put, to stem the bleed of teaching from the passion and get new folks into the profession. So. Initiative in Alabama is supposed to go to the first thing. It’s like, how do we get more teachers into the profession that are actually already on the cusp of being there?
[00:09:53] So these are people that have been to ed schools then through educator preparation programs, but can’t pass this test in some cases by like three [00:10:00] questions. And so state officials are looking at the number of people that could get into the classroom. If they just waived this specific requirement and saying, Hey, this could be a good thing.
[00:10:09] Can I understand that this article then goes into the question that comes to my mind, which is so. What are our sort of barriers to entering the classroom if we care about teacher quality. And it’s not that Alabama’s not thinking about that, but one of the things they’re proposing, for example, is there other tests that teachers have to take?
[00:10:29] One is really. Folio of the work that teachers have done throughout their educator preparation program. And that that’s supposed to be good way to know whether or not a teacher can teach. Here’s my question for you. And here’s where I’m really struggling. The practice exam is different from, for example, a portfolio of work in that .
[00:10:48] It was supposed to be. Content knowledge, it’s supposed to allow teachers to display that they have mastery of the content that they’re going to be teaching. We’re. Some of the things we know in educator preparation programs, [00:11:00] portfolios, especially we’ll focus on are things like pedagogy. And I think personally, as a former ed school professor at schools, A lot of time on pedagogy and not enough on content knowledge.
[00:11:11] And we know that kids need teachers with content knowledge to be successful in schools. So I’m a little bit, I understand the impetus to do this in Alabama, but I am a little bit befuddled, even though I know the data that say these tests don’t necessarily make for good teachers. My question is if we start to bring down these barriers to entry now, and we’re not thoughtful about.
[00:11:33] How long such an initiative would last, or we’re not thoughtful about alternative ways to make sure educators have the content knowledge. They need to teach kids. What are going to be the consequences, both short and longterm for children in classrooms. So with your state chief hat on Gerard, tell me , what are your thoughts?
[00:11:53] GR: So I will wear my state chief hat on this one because every state has got very interesting dynamics on how it’ll play out[00:12:00] what I will wear as my policy hat. So , there are two things that come to mind for me. Number one, what is the end goal is the goal to keep people in the profession or attract people to the profession.
[00:12:13] And so if you’re saying that or that you, but if the groups are saying the practice is willing, now take that. And you’d get rid of it. Therefore we’ll have more teachers in the profession and then we’ll clap and say, that was a good idea. We got more teachers. Now, if we say that we will attract and keep teachers.
[00:12:31] That’s great. Now we know there’s a tough time keeping teachers right now with pandemic. So if it means that we suspended , that’s fine. I guess what I’m trying to figure out is what is the long-term goal. And so right now Alabama’s linked 47th and weeding last. And this is according to a recent story about Alabama and what you’re talking about, if the goal is to raise reading, and if it means getting rid of practice is going to increase reading scores that you get rid of [00:13:00] practice, because the goal is , really to increase reading scores and math scores.
[00:13:04] If the goal is to keep people in the profession and you don’t raise masks, Or reading scores. And the goal is let’s just keep people in the profession or is it to attract more people? There’s also, of course, an Alabama going to be a question about diversity whether it’s poverty first gen color or gender.
[00:13:21] So that’s another dynamic. So as far as I’m going to answer, because I’m not always sure. I know what. We’re trying to reach because through all the B the multiple efforts that Alabama, Virginia and other states have passed over the last 20 years, we’ve seen some success, but there’s still pockets in 2022 that were challenging in 1992.
[00:13:44] And we try adding tests, changing tests, moving tests, and it seems not to make a difference. So at one point it goes to show me that maybe we’re focusing on. Solely on one issue, which is testing where we often don’t have. I don’t think really good [00:14:00] conversations about what role, if we’re talking about families, what role do families play in this?
[00:14:04] What role does family structure play in this? What role could afterschool programs play in being an assistant to schools and as they try to raise math and reading scores, and are we frankly, at a point where we just have to accept that some students for a host of reasons just are not going to. The standards we’ve set for them, no matter what role we change or there’s controversial, we’ve got examples of changing rules and people rate rising, but does this always seem to work across the board?
[00:14:33] So for me, policy side, I’m not sure what question are we trying?
[00:14:38] Cara: Yeah, no, it’s a good one. And maybe Alabama and other states, as they undertake some of these initiatives to basically get bodies into classrooms, need to think about how they use tons of this federal money to make up for. Some of the things that we are afraid teachers in the short term might be lacking because they’re having problems with these tests as we [00:15:00] rethink these processes and the good questions you raised Gerard, we are going to bring in now most fabulous guests coming to us from across the pond.
[00:15:10] This is pretty cool. We are going to be speaking with Charles Moore. He’s a columnist at the Delhi Telegraph and the spectator and the biographer of Margaret Thatcher coming up. Right.[00:16:00]
[00:16:17] Learning Curve listeners. We are very fortunate to have with us today, Charles Moore, he is currently a columnist of the daily Telegraph and the spectator. He was editor in chief of the spectator. the Sunday Telegraph and the daily Telegraph. Lord Moore is the authorized biographer of lady Margaret Thatcher published in three volumes, Margaret Thatcher from Grantham to the fall.
[00:16:40] Margaret Thatcher at her Zenith in London, Washington, and Moscow, and Margaret Thatcher herself alone. The first volume one, the Elizabeth Longford prize for historical biography, the HW Fisher. Best first biography prize and political book of the year at the Patty power political book. In [00:17:00] July, 2020 Moore was appointed by the prime minister of the United Kingdom to the house of Lords.
[00:17:05] With the title Lord Moore of Etchingham. He was educated at Eton and Trinity college, Cambridge, where he read history. In 2007, he was awarded an honorary doctor of letters from the university of Buckingham. Lord Moore, welcome to The Learning Curve. It’s just so wonderful to have you today, and I’m sure you probably hear this from a lot of people, but I like many have been watching The Crown a little bit and have only, just now gotten to the point where we’re learning about Margaret Thatcher.
[00:17:40] So across the globe, as you know, many consider the former British prime minister Lady Margaret Thatcher to have really been the most important female political figure of the 20th century. And you, as I just said, have completed this three-volume biography of her. Could you give our listeners an [00:18:00] overview what her world-changing accomplishments were?
[00:18:05] And maybe you can tell us a little bit of what we don’t see on The Crown.
[00:18:10] Charles: Yes. Well, thank you. The Crown is a vivid picture, but essentially wrong
[00:18:18] because what it shows is Mrs. Thatcher sort of trying to have an argument with the queen. And of course, this absolutely was not the case. And in fact, there was a lot of mutual respect, which was shown particularly by the fact that the Queen attended Lady Thatcher’s funeral, and the only other prime minister’s
[00:18:35] funeral she attended in all these 70 years, is that of Winston Churchill. So actually the relationship was strong. but to come to your question the so much one could say, but I would pull out three things. First of all, I would say there was this thing called Thatcherism, which has made a big difference to the world, which is a political, economic dot.
[00:18:57] About the independence of human [00:19:00] beings and of nations. So that it’s sort of to do with self-reliance and so belief and a capacity to get on with problems rather than shoving all the burden on the state. And the next is The very important role. She played in the defeat of Soviet communism, where she was by far the closest and most importantly, to working with president Regan and because they were friends and bargain from a position of strength they were able to come to terms with the changing Soviet union of Mikhail Gorbachev.
[00:19:31] And this is a very relevant question for the current time, the current times that we’re in. And then finally I think the fact that she was the first enormous. Woman leader in the Western world made an enormous difference to the fortunes of women in the world, and also produced a new style of leadership, which was much more challenging than the usual male leadership.
[00:19:53] So she’s the sort of role model of a particular set of attitudes and also a particular type of character and a [00:20:00] way of women leading, which I think is enormously influential in the 21st.
[00:20:04] Cara: Absolutely. I’d like to press you a little bit on that last point that she presented a new style of leadership. I mean, in certainly , here I am in a country where we have yet to elect a female head of state.
[00:20:16] could you just push a little bit on those aspects of female leadership that were perhaps a little more challenging as you put it?
[00:20:23] Charles: Well, what she thought was that men tended to have a club in politics. Back to one another up worked against the public interest because what she used to say was there’s no second chance for a woman and the trouble is there.
[00:20:37] Isn’t a second chance for the men. she would say so that when they failed people didn’t get rid of them. They just looked after one another, but they weren’t so good at looking after the country. And what she was saying was. She felt her leadership had to do the absolute best at all times. she also used this as a common sense way of talking.
[00:20:56] So she would say she, used economics in a very [00:21:00] political way, which is unusual in Britain. So she would get to grips with serious economic problems, but she would talk about it in terms of women’s experience at the time. So she would say, look, this is an era of inflation. We women know what it’s like to manage a hotel, but.
[00:21:14] She was talking at a time when most women were, what were then called Housewives. We know how to manage your household budget and don’t get fooled by all this jargon. The men are using, they’re making a mess of it, but we know the reality and another joke she sort of jokes she would make about it was, she’d say the Cox may Crow, but the hen lays the egg so that the female is the one who actually does things.
[00:21:37] And the man is the one who just talks.
[00:21:41] Cara: I think I might have to drop that at the dinner table tonight.
[00:21:49] Charles: Okay.
[00:21:51] Cara: That’s wonderful. So, in, as you said so much of what you. Right about in her life seems so relevant today, not just what is [00:22:00] going on globally in the invasion of Ukraine. But also you you’ve already mentioned inflation, right? So when mark Satcher was elected prime minister in 79 Britain was being torn apart by trade unions.
[00:22:15] High inflation rates and political discord, which certainly sounds familiar to this podcast, hosts ears. Talk a little bit more about those foundational economic principles that she established, and then more specifically the impact of those principles on restoring the British place in the world.
[00:22:35] British prestige.
[00:22:37] Charles: Yes, Britain at that time was much more socialist than the United States at that time. And what had happened was we’d got poorer relatively, and we got very, very smelled up with labor union disputes and national, particularly with nationalized industries. So the capacity of British workforce to produce competitively and to work production.[00:23:00]
[00:23:00] Had greatly diminished. And also the labor unions had been taken over by the left to some extent and wielding too much political power. So the question was, how do you restore prosperity and an open economy and a better polity so that the people who are elected are the people who make the political decisions, not the head of the labor unions.
[00:23:21] And she got to grips with all those questions. And of course, inflation was a function of this problem because it was overspending overboard. Very little control of the money supply and she didn’t succeed in every respect, but she succeeded in at least two very important ones. One was that she privatized great chunks.
[00:23:40] In fact, the great majority of nationalized industries and made them competitive and perhaps the most important of all was. Change labor law in such a way that most of these disputes and almost all this political intervention by trade unions went away because she would turn power in the unions to the members rather than just the [00:24:00] leaderships.
[00:24:01] So little statistic will tell you that, but when she came into office in 1979, Britain lost more than 29 million working days to strikes in that year. When she left, when she left office in 1990. Britain lost 1.6 million working days districts. And now the figure is, less than half a million, half a million a year.
[00:24:21] So, she’s often called divisive Mrs. Sacha, but in this respect, she produced harmony. The, workforce became 90% of the dispute disappeared, and people got back to work.
[00:24:33] Cara: And can you talk a little bit about the impact of that on how Britain was perceived across the globe?
[00:24:39] Charles: Yes. I think one thing she was very good at was though she was a very much a conservative person.
[00:24:45] She was also a great innovator. And so Britain had ceased to be a model in the early days of the industrial revolution and free trade in the 19th century. And so on Britain had been the nation of all the nations in the world. Even more than the United States, we should integrate. In politics [00:25:00] and economics and in business and science, and this was much, much diminished.
[00:25:04] And by the 1970s and people weren’t ready looking to Britain, but with particularly privatization and also labor union reform, and also so-called monetarism about controlling inflation. People started to look and they said, gosh, Britain is doing, experts is doing way. This is an example of privatization, particularly.
[00:25:23] So that say it became a. Intellectual export a policy export for Britain was bad at any privatization before Britain started this. And it became a worldwide phenomenon, which it continues to be to this day. And people knew what this is such as doctrines were because she was a very good preacher in politics.
[00:25:40] So she’d be always telling you what she thought and why it mattered, and people could pick up on this and they could apply it to their end situation.
[00:25:47] so
[00:25:48] Cara: you say she was a very good preacher of politics, which is fascinating to me. And one of the things that I think is fascinating to many Americans is prime minister’s questions in the house [00:26:00] of commons.
[00:26:00] and she is known for participating in almost 700 sessions, 698 sessions. I’m curious to know, because you talk a bit about her, how she presented herself, how is it that, she was a middle-class person? What was it in her background? In her formative education that helped her to thrive in this heated political environment?
[00:26:26] Charles: Well, I think it’s important that her parents had no sons. She had a sister and her. In those days in that lower middle-class provincial Britain, where she came from from a, a gruesome shop. Very few fathers would’ve wanted their daughters to be highly educated, but her father did, he was interested in politics himself.
[00:26:46] And he really encouraged her and she was a very good academic friend. And so from a good local school, she got into. And not only was she very unusual as a woman getting into Oxford in those days, but she also brought in [00:27:00] as a scientist, which is even rare for a woman. And that type of analytical brain that she had in mastery of facts was immensely useful.
[00:27:09] And she learned about political and public affairs from her father who was as well as being a small businessman was a Methodist lay preacher. So he would go around and preach and she would listen to the way he’s spoken about. And so she was sort of ready for the challenge. And by getting into Oxford, she began to meet people from much richer and more powerful families and get to know all that as well.
[00:27:31] And though she was, I think, very lonely in many ways. As the only woman in the lower middle class woman, she also understood how to take advantage of that, to bring something fresh to the conservative party and to, public affairs. And one thing she always said is the old wisdom Neil saw that people use when they say time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted.
[00:27:52] And this is why she was so successful at parliamentary questions, as you mentioned, because she always did the work. And so, as you know, in that, system of [00:28:00] questions, you don’t know what’s going to get thrown at you by MPS on both sides of the house. And so she was fantastic. He well-prepared twice a week, every week, parliament.
[00:28:09] And this was enables her to grasp its use and also to sort of keep an eye on the whole range of governments and to have a quick answer, because she has a very crisp way of talking when people were fraying this stuff at us. So it was a sort of a challenge, a 15 minute challenge twice a week, keeping her up to the mark and it allowed her to dominate the house of commons in a way that rarely happened before.
[00:28:32] And I think never happened. The prime minister
[00:28:36] GR: arrived to power and began to challenge bureaucracy at the same time that president Ronald Reagan ascended to the white house and began the challenge, the bureaucracy, and the way we had done business in DC for decades, both of them became political friends, and both of them were also committed to winning the cold war by defeating Soviet communism.
[00:28:56] Would you discuss their friendship, the historic significance of [00:29:00] the. Political economic and foreign policy partnerships as well as ways in which their policy ideas and leadership different.
[00:29:08] Charles: And this is very much in the front of my mind at present, because I’ve just recently been in the United States, completing a BBC documentary television documentary about the Reagan Thatcher relationship, which will come out, I think, in about two months or less.
[00:29:21] And it’s also, I think, relevant to where we are now with this terrible situation in UK. The friendship between Reagan and Thatcher was a very unusual one because it was forged in adversity in the 1970s, when neither of them were in power, that’s unusual in the global level that such a relationship starts that way.
[00:29:40] And so they knew straight away. They clicked very first meeting in 1975, about the big issues, economic and cold war. They couldn’t be more different styles of people, you know, Mr. Reagan, very relaxed genial. not so interested in the detail. Her very serious, very earnest, very, always in a hurry. But they were [00:30:00] complimentary to one another and they both liked that.
[00:30:01] I think she thought he was the classic ideal of the American partners, his actor, of course, and this good-looking man and charming man. And he thought of her as a charming well-mannered English lady of greatness. And right from the start it worked. And what was unique was also the situation because it’s never happened before, or since there’s a two term American presidents had the same British prime minister throughout his time.
[00:30:29] He came in later than she did into office. And he left earlier. And so all through this crucial cold war period, these two friends were working together. Sometimes they had big tensions, but they always had great respect and affection for one another throughout. And they use that to enormous effect in the bigger issue.
[00:30:47] I think it is right to say. So the biggest issue, which was what to do about the Soviet union and how to win the cold war.
[00:30:54] GR: Well, to stick with the idea of communism and foreign policy. Lady [00:31:00] Thatcher’s 1988 visit to Poland, including meetings with solidarity leader, Lech Walesa in the shipbuilding city of the Gdansk was among the most triumphant and emotional episodes of our career.
[00:31:13] The Iron Lady had a complex domestic relationship with trade unions, but could you discuss her enthusiastic reception, bipolar shipyard workers, as well as parishioners as Saint Brigid’s Church in Gdansk. And what did.
[00:31:27] Charles: It was very important. Indeed. The British visit as indeed with her visit to Moscow in the previous year in 1987. But in both occasions, she was incredibly well received by the people. Whereas the regime was somewhat uneasy about her. She had always said about trade unions to take your Polish point in particular that trade unions were good things, but they had to be responsible to their members rather than perverted by the leaderships.
[00:31:53] And what was marvelous about solidarity was it was an authentic trade union rather than a communist front organization. [00:32:00] And it grew up in revolt against communist government. And that was just great from Mrs. Hatch’s point of view, it was an authentic workers movement rather than a bogus one. And they, I think look to her and to present Regan much more to other leaders in the west, because part of the strategy and belief of Regan and.
[00:32:20] We’re not just talking to governments here. When we deal with cold war issues behind the iron curtain, we want to reach out to the people of these places. They are not free and they want to be free and we can help them be free. And they really did that. And the Mrs. Sanchez visits there’s particularly these two ones I described, I’ve just mentioned exemplified that.
[00:32:41] So when she got to get dance, she was absolutely fated by. So these people that, but at the very point, when she sees to be the official visitor of the Polish government and was handed over to the reception by the trade union leaders by Lexa went by solidarity, produce television, cut off everything. [00:33:00] So the Polish people were not allowed to see anything of her in Gdansk from that moment.
[00:33:05] And that shows the situation the Polish government was in so huge crowds, recenter and Gdansk. And of course it was also very. Church element, which you mentioned in the, in solidarity and relationship with the Polish Pope, John Paul, the second, all that was invisible to the wider Polish public, because all the official media cuts off, but she was the heroine of the time.
[00:33:27] Gdansk, a friend of mine who was there at the time, he saw a notice in English, Richard in one of the markets and get danced. We said, Mrs. Sacha bipolar and, was the spirit at the time. And what we’re talking about there, 87, 88 is the time when coming to the end of president Reagan’s time when the cracks really, really were showing in the the Soviet union and in the Eastern block, and Mrs.
[00:33:49] Sacha had established a good relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, and she was the first British leader really to get to know Gorbachev. And it was, she that recommended him to Reagan on the grounds that [00:34:00] he really was changing things. She didn’t pretend to agree with him. And the first thing she said to him almost when she met him for the.
[00:34:07] Mr Gorbachev, you need to know that I hate communism was almost the first words. But they had a very frank and she considered honest discussion, 1984, Christmas, 1984. And from then on the whole atmosphere was changing from the big buildup of nuclear weapons that she had. And Reagan had arranged in Europe in the early eighties to a more warm relationship, which brought about huge change in the later eighties and led to the fall of the Berlin.
[00:34:33] GR: When you think about the nature and the character of naturalism, and that term is loaded on bogus in the U S as well as as someone sitting on the other side of the pond and how it was expressed in her views about education reform, environmental conservation, and the European community. How should we think about the nature and character of naturism as relates for guiding lessons for us here in the world today?
[00:34:58] Charles: I [00:35:00] did think secularism is a philosophy. I think it’s more like a disposition which very much reflected her character. It involves a set of beliefs, but they’re not very from doctrines. What they are is a belief in, I think they’re grounded in a belief in Judeo-Christian civilization and in the, virtues of the way.
[00:35:19] she was very keen on the idea that these virtues should be recognized by the west and critically examined by the west and promoted by the west. And she felt that there’d been this terrible weakness in the culture of the west as the post-war era continued. And so she was, it was a sort of call to arms.
[00:35:37] I don’t mean literally to a harm. So in a way, she did a call for nuclear rearmament. Come on. We’ve got something that we can really offer the world. We’ve got a great tradition. We’ve got a great idea of markets, of Liberty, of choice, of national independence. And this is something we should be evangelical about.
[00:35:55] We shouldn’t just let the world divide up into spheres of influence. We need to [00:36:00] tell this good message to the world. And that I think, and also of course emphasize the freedom of the individual in becoming responsible and then improving the condition of society through individual, as well as collective efforts.
[00:36:13] And I think all that came across. So any good philosopher could rip apart some of these doctrines, they didn’t. Coalesce very well. They weren’t systematic philosophy, but they were very, very important messages about the way we ought to be living and the pride we should be able to have in ourselves.
[00:36:32] And that by the way, is why she’s called the iron lady, because it was intended as an insult that prescription, it was given her by a Russian communist red army newspaper. Which was teasing her in a sexist way. It said, you know, think Germany had an iron shops that are in business in Bismarck. She thinks she could be an iron lady.
[00:36:50] Ha ha. And you know, no lady can be iron. And she immediately made a speech saying, I stand before you in my red, she phoned gun with my head, gently [00:37:00] waves, the lady of the Western world. And I’m happy to be called that if that means I stand up for our beliefs against those of communism. And so she knew how to turn.
[00:37:10] The insult into the compliments and it was this sort of almost aggressive way of dealing with things, or certainly very front footed way of dealing with things which made a great difference to the affairs of the world. In
[00:37:23] GR: 1988 in the summer, a chance to travel to Oxford university with a delegation from the university of Virginia to talk about education reform.
[00:37:33] And naturally of course, we talked about some of the reforms that she made when she was in office a month ago. I had a chance to return to England this time to the university of Birmingham. To again, talk to scholars and others about education between the time that she was in office until the time that we’re in right now, how much of her philosophy or bachelorism has relates to education and its relationship to the economy, to jobs and to [00:38:00] making England stronger are still in place now.
[00:38:03] And are there some lessons others around the world can learn from that?
[00:38:06] Charles: Well, it’s been a story of success and failure. She was not fundamentally able to alter many of the, I would say rather bad systems of state education, national education paid for by the state in Britain. The fundamental structure remained the same, but she was able to introduce higher standards of curriculum that she was able to introduce.
[00:38:31] More parental choice. And most importantly she introduced the idea that new schools could start, could generate themselves rather than having, just to be invented by government. And the bad schools could fail and clear. And so we have what we call the academy program. And this means that schools have much more management or their budgets, and they used to have a much more pride in themselves and much more capacity to organize as academy trusts with more than one school in each trust.[00:39:00]
[00:39:00] So you’re getting the sense, that’s a reality of standards and choice is there in the system and that tends to affect what people learn. So. There would be a more rigorous learning that there would have been in those days. And therefore a better preparation for a modern economy and way of life.
[00:39:17] However, I wouldn’t want to exaggerate these achievements because I think fundamentally the British educational system remains controlled by the left and actually in recent years, in many ways, the standards. Declined as the left has become more militant. And that’s particularly happened in our universities as I think it has in the United States.
[00:39:35] So we had getting a big standard, this you all over again. This is how it didn’t always prevail, particularly in social questions. And so not all of her legacy is in place right now, but what is in place, I think is the idea about what this all to be, she can be invoked in order to find out what was said, what was argued, what was done and try it.
[00:39:55] Push that in a new era. And I would say that’s also true in, [00:40:00] well, the fast, because now we’ve got back in a weird situation to the cold war It’s no longer about Soviet communism, but it’s certainly about Russian power and dictatorship and so on and aggression. And how she behaves in relation to that is relevant and there ought to be more attention to it.
[00:40:15] Now in this terrible situation.
[00:40:17] GR: You know what I heard you say? Or the term, the iron lady, and it was used to. Denigrate her. And she ended up adopting that term so much of what she also had to deal with was driven by gender bias and other dynamics when she was in power. There were few women in the UK on the continent, even in the us, in positions of power today in Europe and the United States, more women in power are there some lessons that women, as well as men who were working under the leadership of women can learn from her.
[00:40:48] Style in terms of leadership, diplomacy, and vision.
[00:40:53] Charles: Yeah, I mean, the style is very different today, but first of all, the fact that she achieved this dominance, which was total dominance of the [00:41:00] British political scene for more than 10 years was very important, particularly as it was so innovative.
[00:41:05] Also I think she had an interesting take on this. Women employees policies would agree with, but I think it was very challenging and successful. She said to herself, she didn’t I to say this in public much in order for women to win, they need to capture the citizens that men really think their own.
[00:41:24] So she thought it was not a good idea , for women politicians to talk so much about what are traditionally called women’s issues. Health, let’s say she understood of course the importance of health, but she knew that men were not so interested in that she thought the thing to do where you really win is if you can capture what men care about, what do men care about in politics?
[00:41:43] If they care about war and money and international relations and diplomacy. And so she said her mind above all to conquer those subjects, herself economic policy, cold war policy, and defense policy. And [00:42:00] international relations such as the European community and global relations. And once you do that, you’ve really proved that women can do it.
[00:42:09] And the men are sort of slightly put to flight. and I think she did show that, and it says as a source of anything you can do, I can do better aspects of all of this, which as many as a huge difference to the world. success of Z generations of women, many of whom will not agree with Mrs.
[00:42:26] Thatcher’s actual politics, but will be most interested in her example. Thank you. Well, Lord, more would love for
[00:42:34] GR: you to read a passage of your choice.
[00:42:38] Charles: Yes. Thank you. A word of explanation is required because most of the words in this paragraph. Actually all the words of president Reagan, but I’m reading them out because of the context 40 years ago this year the full cleanse war took place when Argentina captured Portuguese territory, the Falkland islands invaded them and an incredible feat of arms Mrs.
[00:42:58] Thatcher and the British [00:43:00] forces recovered them. 8,000 miles away off the coast of south America. Amazing military feat and political achievement. In that she had quite a difficult time with United States because United States naturally did not want a war in the American continent. But in the end, her friendship with president Reagan prevails and so great with her success, there’s all these attempts to bring about sort of United nations peace plans and things didn’t happen.
[00:43:26] And there was total victory for America. And at this time happily coincided for her with president Reagan, having a state visit to. And visiting the queen. And of course there’s a team. This is Thatcher. And he made the speech in the houses of parliament, where he very kindly from her point of view, use the full example to meet the big play he was making about the nature of the cold war struggle, the Argentina.
[00:43:52] And Falklands, we’re not strictly speaking about the cold war, but they shared the capacities of the Alliance and of. British determination. And so [00:44:00] he made this little speech and I’ll read you a little bit about , just one paragraph which became an important part of the big message, the global message that Reagan and Thatcher we’re giving and this is, what it said.
[00:44:12] The Reagan visit to Britain began on Monday the 7th of June. So it was no whisper of disagreements over. The following day, the president’s addressed MPs and peers in the world gallery the houses of parliament. It was a major set piece speech making much more explicit it’s in the context of the Soviet repression of Poland, where martial law had been declared the previous December, his belief that the west could and should win the cold war freedom.
[00:44:38] He declared in a passage, which he wrote into the speech. Against the advice of the state department Reagan made the Falklands positive. Here’s why the theme, and these are his words on distant islands in the south Atlantic young men are fighting for Britain and yes, voices have been raised, protesting the sacrifice for lumps of broken earth so [00:45:00] far away.
[00:45:00] But those young men aren’t fighting for real estate. They fight for a cause for the beliefs that armed aggression must not be allowed to succeed. The people must participate in the decisions of government. The decisions of government made under the rule of law. If that had been a support for that principle some 45 years ago, perhaps our generation wouldn’t have suffered the bloodletting of world war two.
[00:45:24] And then I say, this was the only part of his speech, which attracted applause as British troops prepared for the final assault. Mrs. Thatcher could not have asked for clearer public support. And I would just add to that as the person referred back to the second world war 45 years earlier, 45 years on, I think we can very much apply these words to the situation with Ukraine.
[00:45:47] GR: We’re Lord Moore. Thank you so much for spending time with us today. Thank you for sharing, not only your scholarship with your insight on her as a person, as a politician, as a visionary at a time in world [00:46:00] history, where we should be concerned less with the right and the left, as much as doing the right thing to make sure we leave our.
[00:46:06] children and families a better world your work and your words have been very helpful to this conversation. You also mentioned you have work coming out soon about Reagan and Thatcher. And so please keep us abreast of that. Work would love to have a conversation with you at a later date about that as
[00:46:22] Charles: well.
[00:46:23] I’d love to do that, and I’m very grateful. It’s been a great pleasure talking to you. Take care. Thank you.[00:47:00]
[00:47:47] Cara: And as always Learning Curve listeners, we close it out with our Tweet of the Week. This one from EdWeek Tweeted on March 14th, school districts risks, losing superintendent talent and bypassing promising [00:48:00] future leaders. Here are some key reasons why, so this one friends, I mean, living here in Boston, it is hard.
[00:48:09] to ignore the idea that our Boston public schools in particular have just a really difficult time hanging on to superintendents. And it’s having a negative impact for a long time. Now it’s been having a negative impact on kids. So, I think that this is a really great read and some of the reasons they give is that superintendent turnover is only.
[00:48:33] Some settings that let’s not blame the pandemic for everything, because some superintendents are actually likely to stay, but that, and these are the important ones. So BPS mayor. Whew. I hope you were listening. Hiring great superintendent. Is getting more complex. And this article says at school boards will need to consider greener talent and probably opening up their wallets and [00:49:00] developing folks which, who in a big old school district that is not something to take lightly.
[00:49:05] Finally. The challenges faced by female superintendents has been placed into stark light, according to this article, by the pandemic so that, you know, we really need to think about diversity in the superintendents workforce and what that means, especially when we are hiring superintendents. It’s a really important job, Gerard.
[00:49:26] It’s about time. We started thinking more deeply. I think we talk a lot about teachers, but we’re not often talking about the people who are steering the ship right at the top of the district. Next week, we are going to be speaking with Arthur Levine. Many of you will know him. He is the president emeritus of Columbia’s teacher college.
[00:49:44] I bet he will have something to say about all of these things, but that more coming up Gerard until then. Please take care of yourself and I’ll be waiting for you’re always illuminating take on whatever stories [00:50:00] and commentary we have in the week ahead.
[00:50:02] GR: Sounds good. Take
[00:50:04] Cara: care. All right. Have a good one.
[00:50:05] Take care.[00:51:00]
Related Content
Hubwonk host Joe Selvaggi talks with former CEO of Kyiv Post and senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War Nataliya Bugayova about her research on the rise of Vladimir Putin and how it can inform understanding of the Russian invasion, particularly when viewed through the eyes of Ukrainians.
Guest:
Nataliya Bugayova is a non-resident National Security Fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, where she led Russia & Ukraine research team. Nataliya serves as the Director of Strategic at Vertical Knowledge. She was the CEO of the Kyiv Post. She also served as Chief of Staff and Adviser on cooperation with international financial institutions to a Ukrainian Economy Minister after the Euromaidan Revolution in February 2014. She holds a Master’s in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. She is also an ISF fellow at Schmidt Futures. She is originally from Ukraine.
WATCH:
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
Joe Selvaggi:
This is Hubwonk. I’m Joe Selvaggi.
Joe Selvaggi:
Welcome to Hubwonk, a podcast of Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston. The eyes of the world have turned to Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine, where for the first time, since the second world war a sovereign European country is facing an existential threat from an advancing army. The Russian leaders, Vladimir Putin characterized it as a military action necessary to rescue fellow Russians from an oppressive fascist dictatorship. The Ukrainians themselves led by their charismatic president. Volodymyr Zelensky have defied this narrative by both mounting armed and civilian resistance, and also waging and winning the public opinion campaign for support from the United States and Europe in an epic struggle to defend its right to sovereignty over the might of a former superpower. The Ukrainian people have accepted the mantle of frontline combatants, defending freedom and the international rule of law, but it prevail over a determined aggressor with ambitions to return Russia, to its former Soviet prominence.
Joe Selvaggi:
And what could those of us who look on in horror do to help them in their struggle? My guest today is senior fellow from the Institute for the study of war Nataliya Bugayova where she leads the Russia and Ukraine portfolio. Her work focuses on the Kremlin’s foreign policy decision making and ongoing global campaigns. Her research paper entitled how we got here with Russia. The Kremlin’s worldview written in 2019 is a chillingly precedent analysis of president Putin’s ambitions to ive the humiliation of the fall of the Soviet union and lead Russia back to its role as rival to the us and the west. Miss Bugayova will share with us how the themes in her research should inform our understanding of this war and guide our response. She’ll also share with us, her experience of having her country attack and trying to help friends and family survive the onslaught. When I return, I’ll be joined by Institute for the study of war senior fellow Natalia Bugayova. All right, we’re back. This is Hubwonk I’m Joe Selvaggi, and I’m now pleased to be joined by national security fellow for the Institute for the study of war. Nataliya Bugayova. Welcome to Hubwonk, Natalia Bugayova.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Thank you. Great to be here
Joe Selvaggi:
Now, before we dive into the details of our our discussion of the, which is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia you’ve had a long journey to get to the, the Institute for the study of war. In fact, we knew each other back in 2012 at, at Harvard Kennedy school. But for our listeners, take us through that journey. How did you go from a Ukrainian citizen all the way over to the United States to to the study of war?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Absolutely. so I’m originally from Ukraine from Eastern Ukraine and town called. I came to us first as an exchange student then returned to Ukraine where I studied in college and worked in KF. Then I came back to the us for grad school at HKS where we’ve met then returned to Ukraine again shortly before the Euro revolution of 2013, 2014. And it was truly a privilege to be a part of those events and help with the reform efforts first working for the ministry of economy, and then becoming the CEO of ke of post, which was Ukraine’s English language, independent publication at the time. And then I moved back to the us in thousand 16 and had been working at the Institute for the study of war in very roles. One of which was leading Russia and Ukraine research program. I remained national security file S w and work at a technology company at my day job. And so I have been working in Russia since 2014 and various roles including in the field of open source intelligence and military analysis.
Joe Selvaggi:
So before we get it into that analysis you say your hometown is in Eastern Ukraine. It’s a very difficult place to live. I hope your your family and friends have found safety there.
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, thank you for asking. I was able to evacuate my grandparents. One of whom is disabled and my mom who are now in Europe but other members of my family are in Ukraine and some of them are still in, which is now experiencing heavy Shein by the Russian forces.
Joe Selvaggi:
I’m sorry to hear that. And I, I wish them well. Now I thought your at piece for the Institute for the study of war offered a, a superb understanding of how we got here with Putin. You know, he is a man who lives through the collapse of the Soviet union. And that I think helps inform our understanding of who this man is. I don’t wanna oversimplify the thesis of your work, how we got here with Russia. But by my reading I’m gonna, I’m gonna paraphrase and then ask you to embellish a little on this. I would say Putin’s view is is a deep resentment in the Russian loss of stature after the fall of the, of the Soviet union. He had a, has a nostalgia re return that the power of that empire, if you will. And he sees the west as an obstacle to that return to greatness and, and, and resents the us and, and the west for that take us through the thesis of your research and, and, and it, it, it more or less shows an evolution from a fairly friendly post follow the Berlin wall, Russia, to where we are now with a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Take us through that arc of how we got here.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Sure. Look, I think Putin’s objectives have not really changed for years. They’ve always been the preservation of his regime efforts to restate Russia as a global and great power regain dominant influence over the former Soviets states and can us and neutralized NATO, I think regaining control over Ukraine remained a consistent goal for him for many years. And his intent when it comes to Ukraine is really independent of the west. And I think it’s a really key point. Us actions and NATO actions might have accelerated or dampen the Kremlin actions in some cases, but again, his goals Putins goals remain the same. And in fact, it’s really key to remember that the efforts to reintegrate. So, so that space have actually started even before Putin. It was president Yeltsin that who already adopted more assertive national security concept in 97, which include more paternalistic policy toward the forms of its states. So when it comes to Ukraine, you know, Putin tried to regain dominant influence through many means. First by trying to install political puppets, then through military intervention in 2014, and then through may any attempts to manipulate both Ukraine and the west into giving up Ukraine sovereignty essentially for the past eight years. And none of those efforts really worked. So put in kind of resorted to the last stool he had left from probably his perspective, which is a full, full on military offensive that he has launched last month.
Joe Selvaggi:
Oh, sorry. I wanted to, excuse me. I just wanted to get to the first point you made in that, that response, which is I think addressing some level of narrative here in the us that this rationale for this invasion of Ukraine was somehow precipitated by let’s say the accretion of states into NATO or the EU, in other words, as a response to what he saw was a slow threat to throw growing and, and ever closer threat from, from NATO or the us, you’re saying no independent of our act or NATOs actions or these actions Russia and Putin had designed on influencing neighbor states all along.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Correct. I do think that Western actions, once again served as an accelerator or, or Deener in some cases, but really the intent has the, and consistent for years. And I think it’s also really important to, to say that, you know, there was a brief period of Nonas assert foreign policy only for a few years in 1990s which I think many in the us believed have become the new norm, but in my assessment it was an anomaly because it was actually Ys Wright who reversed to, to the course of trying to be more istic towards the forms of its states already in late nineties. And couldn’t continued that trend in really award and in action for the next 20 years.
Joe Selvaggi:
Well, another simultaneous trend were those former Soviet states who I’d like to hear your opinion on that decided to look westward and, and either join EU or NATO. I don’t know what the count is. I believe eight or nine states that had been a Soviet satellite states now are members of NATO. Forgive me if this is a a naive question, why wouldn’t Russia be enticed to join the west, at least at some level rather than position itself, as in, in clear opposition,
Nataliya Bugayova:
The, the point about states joining the west and Russia’s argument about the fear of influence, right. That it deserves. First I was just like, would like to point out that I think this, this argument is inde defensible in many ways. You know, first the world, including Russia recognized Ukraine’s independence and independence of many former Soviet states in 1991. And no independent state should need to justify its existence. It’s foreign policy ambition, no matter how big or small it is. And you know, I think that’s point number one, point number two look, it was Russia’s and the Kremlin’s choice first and foremost to do so in part, because pus number one goal is preservation of his regime. And a lot of the I think Western values and rules are antithetical to his efforts to preserve his regime, which he does through Corion corruption and broadly authoritarian methods. So I think that’s actually the core reason why Russia, despite perhaps some of its ambitions to join the west has not because the model is antithetical to Kremlin’s model of regime preservation.
Joe Selvaggi:
So, so let’s focus now on your country, Ukraine which ha hasn’t joined the EU hasn’t joined NATO but clearly has gone from, let’s say a country, largely sympathetic to Russia and being a partner or a an ally of Russia to where we see now the, the brave of Vladimir Zelensky clearly with a Western focus, one who seems to aspire to the freedom and, and and the values of the west. How did we get from a, a country that was largely Russian, like to one that seems to be leaning strongly westward?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Sure. Look, I think Ukraine’s, and Russia’s path has started to diverge actually shortly after the Soviet union collapse and divide has never been actually about ethnicity and language. And I can tell you that as a, you know, originally Russian speaking Ukrainian the core divide has been always about the way of life. And the origin revolution off to south and four was the first clear indication that Ukraine went, did to evolve, to be the country with rights and rules. And the 2014 revolution was of course the pivotal moment. And again, the choice was not primarily about the west or the east. It was about whether to become a police state like Russia or not. And may in Ukraine made that choice in 2014 and, and some, you know, paid the ultimate price. And I was part of the events on, you know, on neuro down in thousand 14. And it’s worth noting that Ukraine has been the only country in the form of its space that has had legitimate con consecutive presidential elections, and the only country that had free media, no matter how limited but nevertheless free and, you know, no matter the issues. And of course the known issue with the corruption. I think the trajectory has been for years much before Lansky kind of toward a free year or state.
Joe Selvaggi:
Now you, you mentioned so that, that it’s this divide dates back to the fall of the Soviet union. And it’s a, it’s a, it’s a argument of a difference between in values or aspirations for one’s country rule of law. Now you, you made reference to, I, I believe it’s called the Euro Maden, a revolution in Ukraine and Russia did not sit by idly and, and watch this happen. In fact, of course the Russia did invade portions of Ukraine back in 2014, say more about what you think the motive was for that. Was that something as a, as a sort of a, a Sabre rattling, or was this a a long slow design on actually taking over Ukraine in the long run?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah. Great question. Look, I think first Ukraine’s freedom aspirations that were expressed very clearly in 2014, the it pose a threat from Putin’s perspective to Russian his regime precisely because the democratic model in the former Soviet its space can both, you know, endanger Putin’s regime, but show in Russian’s an alternative, but also in danger Putins project to integrate the other states in the forms of its space into kind of Russia dominated frameworks. I think in my assessment least was planned long before 2015, given the speed with which was, it was executed. I putting use the opportune moment essentially when there was a weakness in Ukrainian governance after shortly after the Euro revolution to both cease crime and launch military invasion in DOAs, I think it’s also were noting that again, as in many cases, the goal us to control Ukraine and to control its decision making. What Russia tried to do for the subsequent eight years is to use the illegal self reclaimed, you know, DNR and LR republics in Eastern Ukraine, and try to insert them in Ukrainian governance system with the, with no success. So once again the goal always been and always remained control and in 2014, Russia saw an opportunity to go for portions of Ukraine, essentially militarily, I think again, CIA was planned long before 2014.
Joe Selvaggi:
So okay. The it’s now that we’ve got a, a good history lesson up to current times now, of course we have to talk about a a war. Now Ukraine is roughly the size of Texas, an enormous country with 44 million inhabitants. One does not need to be a a student of the study of war to know that to quell a, a population of that size you would need at a substantial force as one who studies war it seems that that that force was woefully inadequate for the job. Is this mistake attributable to the idea that Putin had perhaps thought Ukraine would be let’s say less resistant to deliberate invasion.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah, great question. I mean, Putin has made several substantial miscalculation in his war effort and, you know, while he will and can recalibrate, I think several issues cannot be quickly undressed. And one of those is that fact that currently yet get misunderstood Ukraine. I think Russia miscalculated local sentiment in 2014. When if you recall, Russia wanted to take six regions of Ukraine, at least in 2014 and managed to secure only two portions of two regions in part, because it had actually miscalculated loyalties on the ground resistance and the sentiment. And it seems that ye eight years after despite the fact that Ukraine has been openly building up its defenses with Western support, the Kremlin has seemed not to have learned that lesson and shown that it does not still MIS understand Ukraine’s military capability or popular sentiment, including what’s really important. And among Russian speaking population, because right now the military action is happening in law part in east and south of Ukraine. And I think in part because Putin and then Kremlin has always assigned very little agency to Ukraine, a classical I think Imperial or great power mistake. And I think it accounts for some of the miscalculation, I think in addition to that, it also, just to me, a bigger problem of analytical reporting chain within Kremlin that might be broken.
Joe Selvaggi:
So you, you had mentioned agency Ukraine has a considerable amount of agency here. They’re putting up a hell of a fight. As someone who’s become a world celebrity in this process has been the president Zelensky he’s winning the public opinion, battle hands down. He’s been, I suppose, compared to even a, a Winston Churchill for our time. Do you see the fight that the Ukrainians are putting up, particularly, as you say, it’s, it’s even the Russian speaking Eastern Ukrainians are putting up a hell of fight. Is this owed to his inspiration and leadership, you think any reasonable leader in that position w would, would still see and still be leading a, a a fiercely resistant Ukrainian population?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No. Great question. Look, I think he is doing a fantastic job. However, I think Ukrainians have well sort pass dependence on one leader and it’s really important to highlight. And you know, even during your, my Don revolution of 2014, there was no one leader on my Don. It was a lot of self organizing, self driven effort at the grassroots level. And similarly, when Russian forces lunch and intervention in south 14, Ukraine actually didn’t have military or army at that point practically. And it was a lot of just local volunteers who went to, to the front line and fought at the time when Ukraine even didn’t have a president. So I think w landscape without the fight will continue though. He’s certainly I think an inspiration figure for many in the world during this time.
Joe Selvaggi:
So let’s get into the on the ground. Again, you’re a student of the study of war. What’s the current military situation on the ground here on day 20.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Sure. A couple of quick points first, you know, put into original plan to seize Ukraine in a matter of days has failed. Russia has not established air or ground superiority yet. And this is despite billion dollars of investment, you know, years of military reform combat experience, Russia forces seem to be failing at basic operational art. I think Ukraine Ukraine’s military, but also the whole population, including once again, Russian speakers are fighting Russia. Wasn’t able to take a single major city for several days early in, in the war, but it has shifted its approach and is now essentially trying to inflict maximum costs in humanitarian costs and trying to level and bomb the city’s and such a level them to the ground. And we have many documented incidents of targeting civilians, and I think this is how Russia has continued to advance its ground forces very slowly, but under this umbrella of of an air campaign.
Joe Selvaggi:
So it seems like it’s screeching into something, a kind to a Stal mate. I’m not sure we’re there yet. It looks like Russia continues to, to advance albeit slowly. Where do you see this military campaign heading and what, what key events are you watching for?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, for sure. Look, the, the outcome is not written from my perspective, the whole country’s emerging to defend Ukraine on one side Russia on the other will likely regroup and renew its offensive. Pushing can throw more capability at Ukraine. And there is some capability that he still has in his escalation letter. Russia also has information dominance over Russia’s domestic information space, which allows it to spin the war in favorable light. However, there’s several challenges for the Kremlin, but also several risks for Ukraine that I’m watching, you know, first Kremlin means substantial miscalculation and, and its war effort and someone which can not be fixed quickly, like understanding Ukraine or, you know, Russian military struggling with basic operational art. I think putting also to risks by deploying significant portion of Russia’s ground forces, which he probably did not intend to use in full into Ukraine their massive logistical issues.
Nataliya Bugayova:
And I think the key question is can Russia establish reliable supply chains so far? It hasn’t, but that’s one thing. I think we’re watching and as food and stretches out further into Ukraine, the logistics will get harder. I think mobilization is also tricky for put in, in part, because I think he realized he doesn’t have his full base in line. We see Russia’s efforts to try to engage militaries of, you know, Ballo or calling for Syrians or today. There were some reports that unconfirmed that Russia is asking for Chinese aid in this fight, I think it’s in part actually sign of weakness and, and the fact that his efforts at home are not going well. I think two more things on Ukraine side that that we are watching that are really important first, you know, ki is Russia’s biggest effort and Ukraine’s main risk. It can change the trajectory of war, even though Russia taking ki will not end this war. I think second is also Russia’s efforts in the south of Ukraine where it had gained the most ground, even though slower than I think we forecasted but Russia’s efforts to gain foothold in the south and then, and circle Ukraine’s forces in the east is another thing that I’m watching
Joe Selvaggi:
The Ukraine is it seemed to do something done the impossible, which is unite all Americans behind a cause. And I’m sure our listeners are thinking right now, my gosh, you know, is there anything that could be done for this cause you had compiled a list of some of the things you recommend vetted, vetted organizations that are making a real contribution to Ukrainians cause. But for those listeners who have skills who have resources who perhaps even medical or military resources, what can our listeners do to help improve Ukraine’s likely positive outcome?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, absolutely. And I talk to a lot of my American friends and many have said that they felt hopeless in a way, but I think there are a lot of things that regular citizens and organizations can do. I’ll name just a couple first. I actually think it’s really important to maintain the issue in the news and maintain the spotlight of the issue and joining rallies calling representatives to demand military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine reading verified sources of information, and actually trying to reach out for those who have friends inside of Russia and balls and trying to break that blockade inform blockade. Andre is trying to keep, you know, its population in the dark is, is actually really important. I think, additionally look, this war will be in part determined by logistics and ability to send a humanitarian and military systems at scale is actually really, really critical Ukraine.
Nataliya Bugayova:
You know, armed forces are several thousands of people and then, you know, they’re supported by territorial defense and then they’re supported by the population. But if we have, you know, millions of people around the world supporting them, it actually gives Ukraine a chance. So humanitarian aid through organizations like Graza or Nova Ukraine and you can share the list of the vetted organization that I compiled is, is really important. And there are also already ways to send medical and other aid directly to Ukraine from in the US. Which, you know, now that some of the supply chains are, are established I think final one I mention is there’s a lot to do also for businesses and organizations from kind of walking the walk on the ESG and divesting from Russia, but also keeping a lot of businesses accountable especially those who operate in Russia, but separately just sending supplies to Ukraine at scale, again, it’s time for big moves. People there refugees and people inside of Ukraine, they need basic stuff, right? Mobility, vehicles, fuel pharmaceuticals how housing modular homes and things like that. So I think there are plenty of ways that people at individual and organizational level can support.
Joe Selvaggi:
Now, you study war, we established that. Let’s talk about a different topic which is peace. I know there’s been several attempts by both countries to discuss terms of ending the fighting in your view, knowing both sides as well as anyone what might be the terms under which both sides might be able to accept a truce or perhaps declare victory and end this?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah, it’s a, it’s a challenging question in part, because there have been peace talks for the past eight years and Russia had many opportunities to establish peace and I just think peace was never a goal control, always been at the goal. The problem is the way that put in frame this invasion essentially stating that Ukraine is not a country and that he aims to, you know, with Russia’s false narrative, as well as the brutality of Kremlin’s military campaign in Ukraine and just horrific civilian target of civilians and the casualties and the humanitarian catastrophe that we are observing. Just make, I think peace talks very unlikely at this, at this point, at least precisely because Putin made it very clear that he will take nothing less than Ukraine sovereignty and Ukraine made it very clear that it would, it would not stop fighting. So I think at this point I do not see a plausible middle ground, but situation can change as a military situation on the ground evolves.
Joe Selvaggi:
It seems that again, Putin has staked his, I dare say his life, his reputation on this, on this war. He’s up for reelection in 2024, as someone who studies Russia and Putin and the dynamics in, in the Kremlin does this war at least as we can see it now improve or, or diminish his likelihood of being reelected if you can call it that within Russia.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah. So, look, first of all, Ukraine is not the only issue at stake for putting in this war. His regime is and actually, so is the project to reintegrate. Former Soviet union states is on, on a line. You know, we see in Russia’s efforts to really pull in ball fully into this conflict. And Russia has regained control over Belarus over the past year, but still conventional be Russia forces have not materially entered the conflict and, you know, Kazakhstan refused to provide soldiers to Russia at least. So I think there’s many things that at stake for him, I think 20, 24, it’s too far away at this point to, to make that assessment just given how much you put on the line. I would also say that look you asked should not anticipate that Russia’s foreign policy will automatically change when Putin’s term ants, whatever that might be an under whatever circumstance that might happen. Unfortunately I think Putin approach will most likely outlast him at least partially. And that is by design.
Joe Selvaggi:
Oh, that’s unfortunate. Well I think we’re running out of time. I think we’ll have to leave it there. Where can our listeners find your work at the Institute for the study of war?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, absolutely. I think rush team ATW is doing phenomenal work covering the conflict and publishing daily updates on Ukraine crisis and the map, and big shout out to my colleagues, Mason Clark and Joe and Catarina w and you can follow three of them on Twitter, but also just go into the understanding war.org for daily updates.
Joe Selvaggi:
Indeed, I’ve been following those and they’re quite informative. It’s, it’s terrifying, but it’s what, we’re what we’re living through right now. So I just want to say a big thank you for joining us in the middle of a war within your country with your family, your friends, your loved ones. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to join us here on Hubwonk. Thank you.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Thank you. And thanks for having me.
Joe Selvaggi:
This has been another episode of Hubwonk. If you enjoyed today’s episode, there are several ways to support the show. It would be easier for you and better for us. If you subscribe to hub won in your iTunes podcast, catcher, if you wanna help, make it easier for others to find Hubwonk, it would be great if you offer a five star rating or a favorable review, we’re always grateful. If you share Hubwonk with friends, if you have ideas or comments or suggestions for me for future episode topics, you’re welcome to email me hubwonk@pioneerinstitute.org. Please join me next week for a new episode of Hubwonk.
Related Posts:
Avak Kahvejian on How Immigrants Drive Innovation
/in Economic Opportunity, Featured, JobMakers /by Editorial StaffThis week on JobMakers, host Denzil Mohammed talks with Dr. Avak Kahvejian, an inventor, entrepreneur and CEO as well as general partner at Flagship Pioneering, a life sciences venture capital company in Cambridge, Massachusetts. For generations, his family was forced to flee from genocide in what was then Armenia (now eastern Turkey), to Syria, Lebanon, and then to Montreal, Canada, via the U.K., and finally, by choice, to Boston. His risk-taking, persistence, and ambition drove him to a place where people from all over the world come to innovate, ideate, and create: the United States. America has always attracted this kind of person, and that’s what has made it into the powerhouse it is today. As Avak cautions, if that well were to run dry, the result would be disastrous for all of us, as you’ll learn in this week’s JobMakers.
Guest
Get new episodes of JobMakers in your inbox!
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
Denzil Mohammed:
I’m Denzil Mohammed. Welcome to Jobmakers.
Denzil Mohammed:
The kinds of people who choose to migrate are typically a special kind of people, risk taking ambitious determined for those who are forced to migrate. These qualities are really forced upon them as they have no choice, but take the risk to make something of themselves, what results you can find in countries like the United States, Canada and Germany, places where people migrate to robust economies, hubs of innovation, inherently entrepreneurial for Dr. Avak Kahvejian, an inventor, entrepreneur and CEO, as well as general partner at flagship pioneering, a life sciences venture capital company, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he’s seen both types of migration and both kinds of risk taking success for generations. He Armenian family was forced to move from what was then Armenia now, Eastern Turkey to Syria, to flee genocide then to Lebanon, then to Montreal Canada, by the UK fleeing civil war. And finally, by choice to Boston, that risk taking persistence and ambition drove him to a place where people from all over the world could come to innovate, ideate and create the United States. This country has always attracted this kind of person making it into the powerhouse it is today. And so of our cautions, if that well were to run dry, the result would be disastrous for all of us. As you learn in this week’s Jobmakers. Avak Kahvejian,
Denzil Mohammed:
A general partner at Flagship Pioneering, welcome to the Jobmakers podcast. How are you?
Avak Kahvejian:
Good, thank you for having me.
Denzil Mohammed:
So tell me a little bit about the work that you do.
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, I work at Flagship Pioneering, which is a company creation firm. It’s an innovation firm and we focus primarily on the life sciences in terms of making new biotechnology companies that are going to develop new therapies or new solutions for sustainability. Whether that’s in the nutrition space or the agricultural space. I lead a team here at, at Flagship that is mandated to I idea and invent new platform technologies. And those platform technologies become the basis for a new, and they develop products over time. And I’ve been doing this now for 10 years.
Denzil Mohammed:
So give us a sense of some of the companies that you’ve helped bring to market.
Avak Kahvejian:
So they are quite diverse. Over the years, I’ve had the pleasure and honor of working on some really cool companies. Some that your audience may know, and some of course, that they will, they’ve never heard of. The, one of the first projects that I got involved with was Moderna. And as now you all know they ended up creating one of the best and, and only vaccines for the, the coronavirus. So that’s one example of a platform technology, meaning a technology that can be used for many, many different things, having the ability in one company to design it, to make it, to apply it, and then to think about different ways of using it is really the model. It’s the archetype of, of what we do. And these are more, more or less chronological is Rubus a company that had the, to make red blood cells in a lab.
Avak Kahvejian:
So kind of like in a factory and to make them therapeutic, to make them medicinal. And so how can you grow artificial quote, unquote, blood in a, in a, in a VAT, but also endow the blood with the therapeutic properties. And you can imagine there’s a range of things you can do with that. And they have trials now for combating cancer. And those trials are, are, are really underway as we speak and a variety of other companies of that ilk, new gene therapies, new nucleic acid therapies like, like Moderna and and, and new discovery platforms that are going to generate the next wave of, of medicinal products.
Denzil Mohammed:
That is absolutely remarkable. And might I add that the, the teams that you’re talking about that form, these companies are extremely diverse and you’re an immigrant from Canada and they’re immigrants all around in this space. You’ve also been active in the nonprofit space, the Canadian entrepreneurs in new of new England, the St. Stephens Armenian elementary school. And much of this clearly is connected to your family’s history of migration. Can you walk us through your family’s journey, starting with your at grandparents?
Avak Kahvejian:
Yeah, so I don’t have all the dates on hand, but in, during the, the genocide that the Turks perpetrated against the Armenians in 1915, my family was very well established in the Western Armenia or what is known as Eastern Turkey in a town called now I think it’s called Sanliurfa, and they were a prominent family there owned a lot of property and, and farmland and during the genocide they had to escape the, the, in, during the, the genocide, the, the mandate was for the Turkish army to either either kill or forced migrate Armenians out of those territories. But what happened was it caused a dispersion of Armenians across the world. My family didn’t go very far. They went to Syria and established themselves there. And then from Syria migrated to Beirut Lebanon and Beirut as you may know, was a, was a microcosm of many, many different cultures and religions, some very extreme differences in terms of Christianity and Islam, all coexisting together. And my parents were born in Beru and I was born in Beru. I had the unfortunate luck, I guess, of being born at the beginning of the civil war there where things started to really fall apart. And that was in 1975, practically carrying me out in a hand basket. We, we moved to London, England, and then as a stopover, and then eventually to Montreal Canada to, to establish ourselves there.
Denzil Mohammed:
And then you ended up here, luckily not by by force, but by choice for the first time in your family’s history. I mean, that’s absolutely remarkable. And these are the stories that, that, you know, people on the street American go, Americans just don’t know that that fall behind you as an entrepreneur, you as an immigrant. So I saw a video of you on YouTube, where you said an immigrant and an entrepreneur are very much the same. Can you explain that to our American audience?
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, yeah, I think there are, are elements of, of starting a company, having an idea, building that company that are very much akin to moving to a new land and trying to essentially find oneself and establish oneself in, in, in that new land. And so as think those are the, those, those experiences both have similarities in what they do to your mind and what they do to your emotions. Just think of yourself as you travel, even as a tourist to another country and the heightened sense of awareness you have from the moment you, you step off the plane is very different from that the sense of heightened awareness you have when you’re walking down the street in your own neighborhood. And, and, and that’s very much kind of the beginning of the entrepreneurial journey. You’re putting yourself in a situation where you need to figure things out.
Avak Kahvejian:
You need to understand who’s who what’s what, and you need to figure out what your next steps are to move forward. That’s, that’s very, very similar to what an immigrant experiences when they come to a new land, now, let alone doing it when you are under duress, let alone doing it when you are doing it by force, as you said, and not necessarily by choice the heightened sense of the heightened sense of awareness and the heightened sense of urgency, you have to survive and thrive. Assimilation involves not simply melting into the, the, the broader hole, which is how we often look at it like, oh, you have to assimilate into this new society. Well, it’s not, it’s not exactly the right definition for the word. If I look up the definition, it says, number one, under assimilation is take in information, ideas, or culture and understand it fully.
Avak Kahvejian:
So that’s actually the, the subject is you taking in the information and understanding it fully. So I think an entrepreneur does exactly that when they first set out to do stuff is figure out situation that their company is trying to disrupt the, the environment that their company’s going to operate in. They need to be consummate learners, a simulators of information and integrators of information, not simply melt in to the status quo, but they need to take it in and understand it so that then they can act on it. And I think that’s exactly what an immigrant has to do. They don’t necessarily simply have to lose their identity and melt into it, but they need to take in the, they need to take in the information and the culture around them and understand it fully.
Denzil Mohammed:
And, and there’s no safety net, right? It’s a risk. And you, you just have, you have, have no choice, but to just forge ahead with it, whether you, you succeed or fail that’s a very, very interesting way of putting that comparison. So 17 years ago, you were that immigrant moving to the Boston area from Montreal, fresh out of your PhD program at McGilI. Did you feel welcomed in the biotech ecosystem here? You know, obviously coming from a country like Canada, which is extremely diverse and depends on immigration, what did you think of the diversity here? Did it, did it help the ecosystem?
Avak Kahvejian:
The, the, the biotech ecosystem here is actually one of the most diverse industries probably that, that I’ve ever seen and it’s become not only an epicenter in the United States, it’s an epicenter for the world and maybe the epicenter for the world. So you have if you see it like a country, it’s a country in and of itself, that is attracting a lot of immigrants. The biotech community here is, and also has, embassies almost, I would call them where companies where countries have actually sent emissaries here to learn about the ecosystem and have a permanent presence here.
Denzil Mohammed:
The second part of that question is that diversity important. And did, does that help the ecosystem?
Avak Kahvejian:
Definitely. most definitely. Now, obviously there, it, it, there’s some uniformity to it in that world. We’re kind of a worldwide community or worldwide tribe of scientists. So many, many of the people coming here come with, again, advanced degrees in, in the Biosciences and have been trained by top academic institutions throughout the world. But at the same time, everyone’s coming with a diverse training with diverse background and bringing new perspectives to, to, to tackling the, the big challenges that we’re trying to tackle. These are not easy problems to, to solve. These are not simply building something in a very predetermined way, in a very a predictable way. There is a lot of uncertainty to what we do in every single endeavor in biotech, virtually every single one. There’s a lot of serendipity involved. A lot of problem solving required a lot of creativity and ingenuity required perpetually and without diverse opinions, diverse backgrounds, interdisciplinary problem solving, we wouldn’t achieve half of what we we achieve. So definitely we need, we need, we need the world applied to, to, to these problems, not just a small group of people or a small group of uniform people to tackle them.
Denzil Mohammed:
And the proof is literally all around you in Cambridge, Moderna, Pfizer companies that are founded by people from all over the place, including the United States. And we have these vaccines. We have these therapeutics, we have, we are advancing our technologies. The data show clearly that immigrants are more likely to study and work in stem. This is just, this is just how it is. And therefore, you know, there’s a great value of H1B, foreign trained workers in the us who are in the stem in stem industries. If you were to give us a suggestion, like, what do you think should be done in the us to address the shortage of American stem workers?
Avak Kahvejian:
We definitely need to make it easier for scientists to come here and to work here because it, it, it can only enrich the intellectual diversity. It can only accelerate the advancement of knowledge and and innovation that we are, are really striving for. And, and as we saw with the pandemic innovation invention and, and advanced advanced technologies are what’s going to help human man overcome major challenges. And, and we can’t sit still. So we’ve experienced the difficulty in bringing scientists from other other countries, even though they have advanced degrees, even though they’ve even demonstrated an and a willingness to come here and contribute. And I, and those barriers have to be those barriers have to come down for sure,
Denzil Mohammed:
In a recent episode of this podcast, I was talking to a son of Dominican immigrants who started a cybersecurity firm. And he said there are 600,000 job openings in, in this field going forward. I mean, that’s just staggering. So I’m bringing it back to something that we mentioned earlier, which is your nonprofit involvement. You’ve stood on the boards of several, including the Armenian schooling Watertown. Now you’re chairman of the board of the international Institute of new England. For those of you who don’t know the international Institute, resettles refugees and creates opportunities for immigrants and refugees to succeed through career advancement pathways to citizenship, et cetera. Why is this work important to you?
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, as, as an immigrant and an immigrant, who’s had it easy. I think I’ve always wanted to figure out a way to give back to to, to immigrants. And, and as we call them new Americans, how do we, how do we help new Americans make a life for themself here? Especially some of those who have not been as fortunate as I have been to land here willingly and to lend here with a, an existing safety net or an existing lending pad. And, and so that’s been really my motivation for, for doing that. Now, again, I play a really small part in the, at the I E as, as chairman of the board, we have really an, an amazing team of people there who, who do everything from the minute someone lands here, a refugee lands here in the United States to finding them housing, helping them get a job, helping them learn the language and to situate themselves, filling their pantries.
Avak Kahvejian:
So they have food and, and, and clothing that work is, is, is a Herculean task and only is only the beginning O of the journey. And so far it’s been, it’s been quite heartwarming and, and amazing to see the outpouring of support we’ve gotten from, from individual donors, from corporate sponsors. And in particular, some of the, the, the, the pillars of industry here in Boston namely the biotech community, the tech community, and the financial services I think especially the biotech community, they appreciate how diversity matters, how it impacts society and how it impacts their business. And they’ve been very generous and, and long term support for what we do.
Denzil Mohammed:
And might I just add refugees come from, not the places that the biggest immigrants sending countries come from, and they’re all over the place, Burma sorry, Myanmar Iraq, Afghanistan the Congo Sudan all these even Ukraine. And so it’s a, it’s a much more difficult task when you have to cater to such culturally linguistically socially different populations. So you talked about new Americans and the idea of the international Institute of course, is to welcome and sustain these families reflecting on your own story and the work that you’ve been doing, explain to audience why the idea of welcoming or being a welcoming or inclusive country is important.
Avak Kahvejian:
Well, if you reflect back on the history of the United States and the history of Canada for that matter, I think what, what makes north America so special? And I think what has one of the things that has contributed to the tremendous amount of success and growth and, and peace and prosperity that we’ve, we’ve benefited from here is that notion of welcoming and including and recruiting people from throughout the world to making, to making, to creating these societies, building these economies. And I, I, I see it firsthand. I felt it firsthand. I see it firsthand, not only in my own experience, but in, in my, in my everyday work as an entrepreneur. And I see it from a historical perspective the, the waves of immigrants and the injection of new ideas, new cultures, new products these things have come from a lot of it have come from the outside and have, have been given the fertile ground here to, to, to flourish.
Avak Kahvejian:
And so I think it’s that amazing alchemy and combination that makes, makes, makes these, these countries so special. And we don’t want to lose that. I, I think there, there is something that we shouldn’t take for granted and that if we do turn off the spigot or constrain it significantly, I think we might not feel it in the near term. People might complain that they don’t have enough workers for particular jobs, et cetera, but I think in the long term, it’ll be even more, more dramatic, more drastic. The impacts will be, will be multi-generational. And, and we have to be mindful of that. So I, I, I, I think we, we should celebrate what, what we’ve accomplished here over, over the, the, the centuries and, and over the last few decades. But there’s obviously more work to do and more opportunity and I’m really glad to be part of it.
Denzil Mohammed:
And again, the proof is all around us. Look at our economy. We’re the biggest economy in the world because we have this constant injection of entrepreneurship and persistence and ideation. And that goes hand in hand with, with welcoming people Avak Kahvejian, general partner at Flagship Pioneering and immigrant from Canada. Thank you so much for joining us on JobMakers.
Avak Kahvejian:
Thank you. It, it was a pleasure. And an honor
Denzil Mohammed:
Jobmakers is a weekly podcast about immigrant entrepreneurship and contribution produced by Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston and the Immigrant Learning Center in Malden, Massachusetts, a not-for-profit that gives immigrants a voice. Thanks for joining us for this week’s incredible story of immigrant entrepreneurship. Remember, you can subscribe to Jobmakers and apple podcast, Spotify over wherever you get your podcasts. And please leave us a review. I’m Denzil Mohammed. See you next Thursday at noon for another JobMakers.
Recent Episodes:
UK’s Charles Moore on Lady Margaret Thatcher & Cold War Leadership
/in Featured, Podcast, US History /by Editorial StaffThis week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Charles Moore, a columnist for The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator, and the authorized, three-volume biographer of Lady Margaret Thatcher. Lord Moore explains why Lady Thatcher is considered the most important female political figure of the 20th century, and reviews the challenges she faced at home and abroad, from trade union strikes to high inflation rates and political discord. They talk about Prime Minister Thatcher partnering with American President Ronald Reagan and standing in solidarity with Poland’s Lech Walesa to face down Soviet communism. Lord Moore describes her middle-class background and a leadership style that led to her 12-year tenure as prime minister in the male-dominated arena of British politics (including nearly 700 sessions of the world-renowned Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons). They also discuss “Thatcherism,” her foundational economic principles and their applicability to other domestic policy topics, as well as lessons for today’s world. The interview concludes with Lord Moore reading from his biography of Lady Thatcher.
Stories of the Week: Attorneys general from 14 states are suing the Biden administration over the Department of Justice’s calls to monitor parental protests at school board meetings. In Alabama, a group is seeking to address the teacher shortage by suspending the requirement to pass a Praxis content mastery exam.
Guest
The next episode will air on Weds., March 23rd, with Dr. Arthur Levine, a scholar with New York University’s Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy, a senior fellow and president emeritus of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, and president emeritus of Columbia University’s Teachers College.
Tweet of the Week
News Links
AGs sue Biden administration over DOJ’s call to investigate protesting parents
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/ags-sue-biden-administration-over-dojs-call-to-investigate-protesting-parents/article_079f53f2-a0ca-11ec-81d0-ff71d478d32a.html
Alabama officials consider suspending Praxis teacher test requirement
https://www.al.com/educationlab/2022/03/alabama-officials-consider-suspending-praxis-teacher-test-requirement.html
Get new episodes of The Learning Curve in your inbox!
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
[00:00:00] Cara: Hello, everybody. Welcome to The Learning Curve. This is Cara Candal here with the great Gerard Robinson, Gerard, how you doing today? [00:01:00] Well, I’ve been having some tech issues. Gerard, I don’t like
[00:01:04] computers.
[00:01:08] Cara: Listeners might hear that I’m going to have any problems with the microphone, the computer. And I think I would rather just go outside on this beautiful day, go for a run or something like that.
[00:01:19] But no, here we are. And we’ve got a wonderful guest today, Gerard, and lots to talk about what’s going on in your world. What are you thinking about?
[00:01:30] GR: Well, one I’m enjoying the weather. So it was going to be 70 degrees here in Charlottesville. So that’s always a good thing. And I put that in context because it snowed on Saturday in Charlottesville yesterday.
[00:01:40] It’s snow. So that’s part one in terms of what I’m thinking about. I am just shocked by high. Attention. One of the issues that I think is really important is getting a lot of other issues, national, international going on, but this is something to do with our schools. So my article is from The Center Square.
[00:01:59] And [00:02:00] it’s by Bethany Blankley. And it’s about the fact that 14 attorneys generals are suing the bike administration over the department of justice has call to investigate parents who were protesting the school boards. So we know that last fall that trying to general Garland had testified before Congress, a number of parents felt threatened.
[00:02:22] School teachers, board members, and other educators felt threatened by what they saw as real protests against group race theory and other issues. What we know as this stuff is taking place. The national school board association center letter dated September 29th to the Biden administration, opposing the parents who were critical of certain issues, referring to the parent protesters as
[00:02:47] domestic terrorists. This of course raised a lot of contention amongst educators across the board. And six months later 14 attorneys general mostly from red states, including [00:03:00] Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah saying that they have requested from DOJ, be a FOIA request information about the.
[00:03:16] In protests and threats against educators. And they’re saying at this point they had yet to receive any new information or confirmation. In fact, if there is a spike, well, why is this information still important? Well, earlier this month school board became one of 21 states that separate tied with national school board association over the domestic terrorism comment is worth noting that the national school board association, in fact, stepped away from that statement and address.
[00:03:46] But still, there are a number of states that said, we just don’t think this makes sense. And so 21 and seven ties number of them are red states, but you also have blue states like Wisconsin who’s in there also Minnesota, [00:04:00] Pennsylvania. In addition to the 21 states that have separate ties, you also have 29 states that have distanced themselves, including blue states, such as Delaware.
[00:04:11] And so this continues to move forward. It is not a big issue. I think it should be. We use words like that. It just really raises a lot of questions. And at least from my read of what the attorney generals are asking, they’re seeing this also through the lens of free speech rights that parents should have an opportunity and having.
[00:04:31] To voice their opinions. Now in voicing your opinion, I surely don’t support threats of any type violence school board members. That’s not the issue, but I will do have two questions. At least it’d be interesting, not for you to answer per se, but just for our listeners. Number one, why aren’t there any attorney generals from blue states, a part of this lawsuit and number two, why haven’t more states separate times?
[00:04:57] With national school board association seems to be [00:05:00] more way upstate. So this very well could be able to wear parts and piece but we see those things happen. And it’s also worth noting that this has gone both ways. Remember when Secretary Paige was the leader of department of education under the Bush administration he had referred to in the conversation.
[00:05:16] Two teachers’ unions as domestic terrorists. And that happened as well. And so this is going on both sides, but the fact that this is not getting the kind of attention that it should, and the fact that they have to lease attorney generals have to sue the Biden administration, DOJ, secretary of it to get information.
[00:05:34] So then we can actually find out if in fact there are more spikes or not at least to be sure.
[00:05:40] Cara: So you bring up two points that come to my mind. The first is that it feels to me like a lot of folks are severing ties with the national school board association. I don’t know, but we should get some, data on that because it sounds like that organization has been having a tough time all around for many [00:06:00] reasons.
[00:06:00] But the other thing that I think you touched on. Is listen, I don’t personally agree with a lot of what’s been going on at some of these school board meetings, surrounding curriculum, et cetera. However, That said, what I do agree with completely is number one parent’s rights. And I’m glad that people are showing up at school board meetings because lots of times they don’t especially pre pandemic.
[00:06:24] Right. But parents’ rights to know parents’ rights to ask questions. Parents’ rights to show up at school. Board meetings are so important. I don’t think we should be discouraging parents from that in any way, but where did we, as to your point on both sides, where did we. Utterly lose the ability to talk to one another civility, because I think that, on the one hand, yeah, the term domestic terrorist is to me, inning to use when you’re talking about parents, probably the vast majority of whom might have an elevated tone, but certainly aren’t domestic terrorists.
[00:06:56] Right. But then on the other hand, we have seen lots of [00:07:00] pictures and videos of school, board meetings where parents. Going in also unable to engage with school board members in a productive and civil way. So I think just writ large in our society, I’m worried about the extent to which we don’t seem to be able as a people to have civil conversations and maybe come to an agreement, which I think Gerard has led to.
[00:07:22] the product of which has been some of these more draconian laws that we’re seeing states trying to pass really hampering what teachers are able to say in the classroom. And so a totally different conversation and there are two sides to that story too. Especially how it’s been playing out in the media.
[00:07:41] But, I think. that you’re right on that this heightened level on both sides , of just in civil or uncivil in civil, what’s the word I’m looking for here? Gerard conversation is really at the root of this problem. Parents do have a right to. Uh, Schools are never going to be able to meet every parent’s single wish and [00:08:00] desire for what their kids experienced in the classroom and especially in our district schools that are larger.
[00:08:06] But parents absolutely , have a right to know. I just hope that on both sides parents and administrators in school boards can learn that. communicate with each other more civilly, because this is what you get. when we get this upset with one another, that’s a really tough issue, Gerard.
[00:08:20] And it’s one that I never thought we would be talking about on a podcast like this when we started it. But I can tell you that. My story the week, I’m really keen to get your take as a former secretary of education and a couple of different states, my friend, and this is about the state of Alabama, which I want to say.
[00:08:37] I think there’s a lot of good stuff going on in Alabama, this legislative session, they’re trying to get past some really productive school choice legislation, early literacy stuff. So shout out to Alabama. However, I have some questions about this next one, and this is. An article entitled Alabama officials consider suspending practice teacher test requirement.
[00:08:59] And this is [00:09:00] from education week. Now, Gerard, let me lead by saying for our listeners, many of you probably already know there’s really little evidence that teacher certification. Equals better teaching, right? There’s an practice being a certification test. a test that is used across multiple states for teacher certification purposes.
[00:09:17] And so the data on the relationship between teacher certification, these tests and successful teaching are scant, but. What we’re seeing in a lot of states, as you know, Gerard is this push to figure out how do we stem the bleeding of teachers from the profession? Although I read an article recently that said, it’s not as bad as we think.
[00:09:37] I think it’s that it’s worse in certain pockets to put, to stem the bleed of teaching from the passion and get new folks into the profession. So. Initiative in Alabama is supposed to go to the first thing. It’s like, how do we get more teachers into the profession that are actually already on the cusp of being there?
[00:09:53] So these are people that have been to ed schools then through educator preparation programs, but can’t pass this test in some cases by like three [00:10:00] questions. And so state officials are looking at the number of people that could get into the classroom. If they just waived this specific requirement and saying, Hey, this could be a good thing.
[00:10:09] Can I understand that this article then goes into the question that comes to my mind, which is so. What are our sort of barriers to entering the classroom if we care about teacher quality. And it’s not that Alabama’s not thinking about that, but one of the things they’re proposing, for example, is there other tests that teachers have to take?
[00:10:29] One is really. Folio of the work that teachers have done throughout their educator preparation program. And that that’s supposed to be good way to know whether or not a teacher can teach. Here’s my question for you. And here’s where I’m really struggling. The practice exam is different from, for example, a portfolio of work in that .
[00:10:48] It was supposed to be. Content knowledge, it’s supposed to allow teachers to display that they have mastery of the content that they’re going to be teaching. We’re. Some of the things we know in educator preparation programs, [00:11:00] portfolios, especially we’ll focus on are things like pedagogy. And I think personally, as a former ed school professor at schools, A lot of time on pedagogy and not enough on content knowledge.
[00:11:11] And we know that kids need teachers with content knowledge to be successful in schools. So I’m a little bit, I understand the impetus to do this in Alabama, but I am a little bit befuddled, even though I know the data that say these tests don’t necessarily make for good teachers. My question is if we start to bring down these barriers to entry now, and we’re not thoughtful about.
[00:11:33] How long such an initiative would last, or we’re not thoughtful about alternative ways to make sure educators have the content knowledge. They need to teach kids. What are going to be the consequences, both short and longterm for children in classrooms. So with your state chief hat on Gerard, tell me , what are your thoughts?
[00:11:53] GR: So I will wear my state chief hat on this one because every state has got very interesting dynamics on how it’ll play out[00:12:00] what I will wear as my policy hat. So , there are two things that come to mind for me. Number one, what is the end goal is the goal to keep people in the profession or attract people to the profession.
[00:12:13] And so if you’re saying that or that you, but if the groups are saying the practice is willing, now take that. And you’d get rid of it. Therefore we’ll have more teachers in the profession and then we’ll clap and say, that was a good idea. We got more teachers. Now, if we say that we will attract and keep teachers.
[00:12:31] That’s great. Now we know there’s a tough time keeping teachers right now with pandemic. So if it means that we suspended , that’s fine. I guess what I’m trying to figure out is what is the long-term goal. And so right now Alabama’s linked 47th and weeding last. And this is according to a recent story about Alabama and what you’re talking about, if the goal is to raise reading, and if it means getting rid of practice is going to increase reading scores that you get rid of [00:13:00] practice, because the goal is , really to increase reading scores and math scores.
[00:13:04] If the goal is to keep people in the profession and you don’t raise masks, Or reading scores. And the goal is let’s just keep people in the profession or is it to attract more people? There’s also, of course, an Alabama going to be a question about diversity whether it’s poverty first gen color or gender.
[00:13:21] So that’s another dynamic. So as far as I’m going to answer, because I’m not always sure. I know what. We’re trying to reach because through all the B the multiple efforts that Alabama, Virginia and other states have passed over the last 20 years, we’ve seen some success, but there’s still pockets in 2022 that were challenging in 1992.
[00:13:44] And we try adding tests, changing tests, moving tests, and it seems not to make a difference. So at one point it goes to show me that maybe we’re focusing on. Solely on one issue, which is testing where we often don’t have. I don’t think really good [00:14:00] conversations about what role, if we’re talking about families, what role do families play in this?
[00:14:04] What role does family structure play in this? What role could afterschool programs play in being an assistant to schools and as they try to raise math and reading scores, and are we frankly, at a point where we just have to accept that some students for a host of reasons just are not going to. The standards we’ve set for them, no matter what role we change or there’s controversial, we’ve got examples of changing rules and people rate rising, but does this always seem to work across the board?
[00:14:33] So for me, policy side, I’m not sure what question are we trying?
[00:14:38] Cara: Yeah, no, it’s a good one. And maybe Alabama and other states, as they undertake some of these initiatives to basically get bodies into classrooms, need to think about how they use tons of this federal money to make up for. Some of the things that we are afraid teachers in the short term might be lacking because they’re having problems with these tests as we [00:15:00] rethink these processes and the good questions you raised Gerard, we are going to bring in now most fabulous guests coming to us from across the pond.
[00:15:10] This is pretty cool. We are going to be speaking with Charles Moore. He’s a columnist at the Delhi Telegraph and the spectator and the biographer of Margaret Thatcher coming up. Right.[00:16:00]
[00:16:17] Learning Curve listeners. We are very fortunate to have with us today, Charles Moore, he is currently a columnist of the daily Telegraph and the spectator. He was editor in chief of the spectator. the Sunday Telegraph and the daily Telegraph. Lord Moore is the authorized biographer of lady Margaret Thatcher published in three volumes, Margaret Thatcher from Grantham to the fall.
[00:16:40] Margaret Thatcher at her Zenith in London, Washington, and Moscow, and Margaret Thatcher herself alone. The first volume one, the Elizabeth Longford prize for historical biography, the HW Fisher. Best first biography prize and political book of the year at the Patty power political book. In [00:17:00] July, 2020 Moore was appointed by the prime minister of the United Kingdom to the house of Lords.
[00:17:05] With the title Lord Moore of Etchingham. He was educated at Eton and Trinity college, Cambridge, where he read history. In 2007, he was awarded an honorary doctor of letters from the university of Buckingham. Lord Moore, welcome to The Learning Curve. It’s just so wonderful to have you today, and I’m sure you probably hear this from a lot of people, but I like many have been watching The Crown a little bit and have only, just now gotten to the point where we’re learning about Margaret Thatcher.
[00:17:40] So across the globe, as you know, many consider the former British prime minister Lady Margaret Thatcher to have really been the most important female political figure of the 20th century. And you, as I just said, have completed this three-volume biography of her. Could you give our listeners an [00:18:00] overview what her world-changing accomplishments were?
[00:18:05] And maybe you can tell us a little bit of what we don’t see on The Crown.
[00:18:10] Charles: Yes. Well, thank you. The Crown is a vivid picture, but essentially wrong
[00:18:18] because what it shows is Mrs. Thatcher sort of trying to have an argument with the queen. And of course, this absolutely was not the case. And in fact, there was a lot of mutual respect, which was shown particularly by the fact that the Queen attended Lady Thatcher’s funeral, and the only other prime minister’s
[00:18:35] funeral she attended in all these 70 years, is that of Winston Churchill. So actually the relationship was strong. but to come to your question the so much one could say, but I would pull out three things. First of all, I would say there was this thing called Thatcherism, which has made a big difference to the world, which is a political, economic dot.
[00:18:57] About the independence of human [00:19:00] beings and of nations. So that it’s sort of to do with self-reliance and so belief and a capacity to get on with problems rather than shoving all the burden on the state. And the next is The very important role. She played in the defeat of Soviet communism, where she was by far the closest and most importantly, to working with president Regan and because they were friends and bargain from a position of strength they were able to come to terms with the changing Soviet union of Mikhail Gorbachev.
[00:19:31] And this is a very relevant question for the current time, the current times that we’re in. And then finally I think the fact that she was the first enormous. Woman leader in the Western world made an enormous difference to the fortunes of women in the world, and also produced a new style of leadership, which was much more challenging than the usual male leadership.
[00:19:53] So she’s the sort of role model of a particular set of attitudes and also a particular type of character and a [00:20:00] way of women leading, which I think is enormously influential in the 21st.
[00:20:04] Cara: Absolutely. I’d like to press you a little bit on that last point that she presented a new style of leadership. I mean, in certainly , here I am in a country where we have yet to elect a female head of state.
[00:20:16] could you just push a little bit on those aspects of female leadership that were perhaps a little more challenging as you put it?
[00:20:23] Charles: Well, what she thought was that men tended to have a club in politics. Back to one another up worked against the public interest because what she used to say was there’s no second chance for a woman and the trouble is there.
[00:20:37] Isn’t a second chance for the men. she would say so that when they failed people didn’t get rid of them. They just looked after one another, but they weren’t so good at looking after the country. And what she was saying was. She felt her leadership had to do the absolute best at all times. she also used this as a common sense way of talking.
[00:20:56] So she would say she, used economics in a very [00:21:00] political way, which is unusual in Britain. So she would get to grips with serious economic problems, but she would talk about it in terms of women’s experience at the time. So she would say, look, this is an era of inflation. We women know what it’s like to manage a hotel, but.
[00:21:14] She was talking at a time when most women were, what were then called Housewives. We know how to manage your household budget and don’t get fooled by all this jargon. The men are using, they’re making a mess of it, but we know the reality and another joke she sort of jokes she would make about it was, she’d say the Cox may Crow, but the hen lays the egg so that the female is the one who actually does things.
[00:21:37] And the man is the one who just talks.
[00:21:41] Cara: I think I might have to drop that at the dinner table tonight.
[00:21:49] Charles: Okay.
[00:21:51] Cara: That’s wonderful. So, in, as you said so much of what you. Right about in her life seems so relevant today, not just what is [00:22:00] going on globally in the invasion of Ukraine. But also you you’ve already mentioned inflation, right? So when mark Satcher was elected prime minister in 79 Britain was being torn apart by trade unions.
[00:22:15] High inflation rates and political discord, which certainly sounds familiar to this podcast, hosts ears. Talk a little bit more about those foundational economic principles that she established, and then more specifically the impact of those principles on restoring the British place in the world.
[00:22:35] British prestige.
[00:22:37] Charles: Yes, Britain at that time was much more socialist than the United States at that time. And what had happened was we’d got poorer relatively, and we got very, very smelled up with labor union disputes and national, particularly with nationalized industries. So the capacity of British workforce to produce competitively and to work production.[00:23:00]
[00:23:00] Had greatly diminished. And also the labor unions had been taken over by the left to some extent and wielding too much political power. So the question was, how do you restore prosperity and an open economy and a better polity so that the people who are elected are the people who make the political decisions, not the head of the labor unions.
[00:23:21] And she got to grips with all those questions. And of course, inflation was a function of this problem because it was overspending overboard. Very little control of the money supply and she didn’t succeed in every respect, but she succeeded in at least two very important ones. One was that she privatized great chunks.
[00:23:40] In fact, the great majority of nationalized industries and made them competitive and perhaps the most important of all was. Change labor law in such a way that most of these disputes and almost all this political intervention by trade unions went away because she would turn power in the unions to the members rather than just the [00:24:00] leaderships.
[00:24:01] So little statistic will tell you that, but when she came into office in 1979, Britain lost more than 29 million working days to strikes in that year. When she left, when she left office in 1990. Britain lost 1.6 million working days districts. And now the figure is, less than half a million, half a million a year.
[00:24:21] So, she’s often called divisive Mrs. Sacha, but in this respect, she produced harmony. The, workforce became 90% of the dispute disappeared, and people got back to work.
[00:24:33] Cara: And can you talk a little bit about the impact of that on how Britain was perceived across the globe?
[00:24:39] Charles: Yes. I think one thing she was very good at was though she was a very much a conservative person.
[00:24:45] She was also a great innovator. And so Britain had ceased to be a model in the early days of the industrial revolution and free trade in the 19th century. And so on Britain had been the nation of all the nations in the world. Even more than the United States, we should integrate. In politics [00:25:00] and economics and in business and science, and this was much, much diminished.
[00:25:04] And by the 1970s and people weren’t ready looking to Britain, but with particularly privatization and also labor union reform, and also so-called monetarism about controlling inflation. People started to look and they said, gosh, Britain is doing, experts is doing way. This is an example of privatization, particularly.
[00:25:23] So that say it became a. Intellectual export a policy export for Britain was bad at any privatization before Britain started this. And it became a worldwide phenomenon, which it continues to be to this day. And people knew what this is such as doctrines were because she was a very good preacher in politics.
[00:25:40] So she’d be always telling you what she thought and why it mattered, and people could pick up on this and they could apply it to their end situation.
[00:25:47] so
[00:25:48] Cara: you say she was a very good preacher of politics, which is fascinating to me. And one of the things that I think is fascinating to many Americans is prime minister’s questions in the house [00:26:00] of commons.
[00:26:00] and she is known for participating in almost 700 sessions, 698 sessions. I’m curious to know, because you talk a bit about her, how she presented herself, how is it that, she was a middle-class person? What was it in her background? In her formative education that helped her to thrive in this heated political environment?
[00:26:26] Charles: Well, I think it’s important that her parents had no sons. She had a sister and her. In those days in that lower middle-class provincial Britain, where she came from from a, a gruesome shop. Very few fathers would’ve wanted their daughters to be highly educated, but her father did, he was interested in politics himself.
[00:26:46] And he really encouraged her and she was a very good academic friend. And so from a good local school, she got into. And not only was she very unusual as a woman getting into Oxford in those days, but she also brought in [00:27:00] as a scientist, which is even rare for a woman. And that type of analytical brain that she had in mastery of facts was immensely useful.
[00:27:09] And she learned about political and public affairs from her father who was as well as being a small businessman was a Methodist lay preacher. So he would go around and preach and she would listen to the way he’s spoken about. And so she was sort of ready for the challenge. And by getting into Oxford, she began to meet people from much richer and more powerful families and get to know all that as well.
[00:27:31] And though she was, I think, very lonely in many ways. As the only woman in the lower middle class woman, she also understood how to take advantage of that, to bring something fresh to the conservative party and to, public affairs. And one thing she always said is the old wisdom Neil saw that people use when they say time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted.
[00:27:52] And this is why she was so successful at parliamentary questions, as you mentioned, because she always did the work. And so, as you know, in that, system of [00:28:00] questions, you don’t know what’s going to get thrown at you by MPS on both sides of the house. And so she was fantastic. He well-prepared twice a week, every week, parliament.
[00:28:09] And this was enables her to grasp its use and also to sort of keep an eye on the whole range of governments and to have a quick answer, because she has a very crisp way of talking when people were fraying this stuff at us. So it was a sort of a challenge, a 15 minute challenge twice a week, keeping her up to the mark and it allowed her to dominate the house of commons in a way that rarely happened before.
[00:28:32] And I think never happened. The prime minister
[00:28:36] GR: arrived to power and began to challenge bureaucracy at the same time that president Ronald Reagan ascended to the white house and began the challenge, the bureaucracy, and the way we had done business in DC for decades, both of them became political friends, and both of them were also committed to winning the cold war by defeating Soviet communism.
[00:28:56] Would you discuss their friendship, the historic significance of [00:29:00] the. Political economic and foreign policy partnerships as well as ways in which their policy ideas and leadership different.
[00:29:08] Charles: And this is very much in the front of my mind at present, because I’ve just recently been in the United States, completing a BBC documentary television documentary about the Reagan Thatcher relationship, which will come out, I think, in about two months or less.
[00:29:21] And it’s also, I think, relevant to where we are now with this terrible situation in UK. The friendship between Reagan and Thatcher was a very unusual one because it was forged in adversity in the 1970s, when neither of them were in power, that’s unusual in the global level that such a relationship starts that way.
[00:29:40] And so they knew straight away. They clicked very first meeting in 1975, about the big issues, economic and cold war. They couldn’t be more different styles of people, you know, Mr. Reagan, very relaxed genial. not so interested in the detail. Her very serious, very earnest, very, always in a hurry. But they were [00:30:00] complimentary to one another and they both liked that.
[00:30:01] I think she thought he was the classic ideal of the American partners, his actor, of course, and this good-looking man and charming man. And he thought of her as a charming well-mannered English lady of greatness. And right from the start it worked. And what was unique was also the situation because it’s never happened before, or since there’s a two term American presidents had the same British prime minister throughout his time.
[00:30:29] He came in later than she did into office. And he left earlier. And so all through this crucial cold war period, these two friends were working together. Sometimes they had big tensions, but they always had great respect and affection for one another throughout. And they use that to enormous effect in the bigger issue.
[00:30:47] I think it is right to say. So the biggest issue, which was what to do about the Soviet union and how to win the cold war.
[00:30:54] GR: Well, to stick with the idea of communism and foreign policy. Lady [00:31:00] Thatcher’s 1988 visit to Poland, including meetings with solidarity leader, Lech Walesa in the shipbuilding city of the Gdansk was among the most triumphant and emotional episodes of our career.
[00:31:13] The Iron Lady had a complex domestic relationship with trade unions, but could you discuss her enthusiastic reception, bipolar shipyard workers, as well as parishioners as Saint Brigid’s Church in Gdansk. And what did.
[00:31:27] Charles: It was very important. Indeed. The British visit as indeed with her visit to Moscow in the previous year in 1987. But in both occasions, she was incredibly well received by the people. Whereas the regime was somewhat uneasy about her. She had always said about trade unions to take your Polish point in particular that trade unions were good things, but they had to be responsible to their members rather than perverted by the leaderships.
[00:31:53] And what was marvelous about solidarity was it was an authentic trade union rather than a communist front organization. [00:32:00] And it grew up in revolt against communist government. And that was just great from Mrs. Hatch’s point of view, it was an authentic workers movement rather than a bogus one. And they, I think look to her and to present Regan much more to other leaders in the west, because part of the strategy and belief of Regan and.
[00:32:20] We’re not just talking to governments here. When we deal with cold war issues behind the iron curtain, we want to reach out to the people of these places. They are not free and they want to be free and we can help them be free. And they really did that. And the Mrs. Sanchez visits there’s particularly these two ones I described, I’ve just mentioned exemplified that.
[00:32:41] So when she got to get dance, she was absolutely fated by. So these people that, but at the very point, when she sees to be the official visitor of the Polish government and was handed over to the reception by the trade union leaders by Lexa went by solidarity, produce television, cut off everything. [00:33:00] So the Polish people were not allowed to see anything of her in Gdansk from that moment.
[00:33:05] And that shows the situation the Polish government was in so huge crowds, recenter and Gdansk. And of course it was also very. Church element, which you mentioned in the, in solidarity and relationship with the Polish Pope, John Paul, the second, all that was invisible to the wider Polish public, because all the official media cuts off, but she was the heroine of the time.
[00:33:27] Gdansk, a friend of mine who was there at the time, he saw a notice in English, Richard in one of the markets and get danced. We said, Mrs. Sacha bipolar and, was the spirit at the time. And what we’re talking about there, 87, 88 is the time when coming to the end of president Reagan’s time when the cracks really, really were showing in the the Soviet union and in the Eastern block, and Mrs.
[00:33:49] Sacha had established a good relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, and she was the first British leader really to get to know Gorbachev. And it was, she that recommended him to Reagan on the grounds that [00:34:00] he really was changing things. She didn’t pretend to agree with him. And the first thing she said to him almost when she met him for the.
[00:34:07] Mr Gorbachev, you need to know that I hate communism was almost the first words. But they had a very frank and she considered honest discussion, 1984, Christmas, 1984. And from then on the whole atmosphere was changing from the big buildup of nuclear weapons that she had. And Reagan had arranged in Europe in the early eighties to a more warm relationship, which brought about huge change in the later eighties and led to the fall of the Berlin.
[00:34:33] GR: When you think about the nature and the character of naturalism, and that term is loaded on bogus in the U S as well as as someone sitting on the other side of the pond and how it was expressed in her views about education reform, environmental conservation, and the European community. How should we think about the nature and character of naturism as relates for guiding lessons for us here in the world today?
[00:34:58] Charles: I [00:35:00] did think secularism is a philosophy. I think it’s more like a disposition which very much reflected her character. It involves a set of beliefs, but they’re not very from doctrines. What they are is a belief in, I think they’re grounded in a belief in Judeo-Christian civilization and in the, virtues of the way.
[00:35:19] she was very keen on the idea that these virtues should be recognized by the west and critically examined by the west and promoted by the west. And she felt that there’d been this terrible weakness in the culture of the west as the post-war era continued. And so she was, it was a sort of call to arms.
[00:35:37] I don’t mean literally to a harm. So in a way, she did a call for nuclear rearmament. Come on. We’ve got something that we can really offer the world. We’ve got a great tradition. We’ve got a great idea of markets, of Liberty, of choice, of national independence. And this is something we should be evangelical about.
[00:35:55] We shouldn’t just let the world divide up into spheres of influence. We need to [00:36:00] tell this good message to the world. And that I think, and also of course emphasize the freedom of the individual in becoming responsible and then improving the condition of society through individual, as well as collective efforts.
[00:36:13] And I think all that came across. So any good philosopher could rip apart some of these doctrines, they didn’t. Coalesce very well. They weren’t systematic philosophy, but they were very, very important messages about the way we ought to be living and the pride we should be able to have in ourselves.
[00:36:32] And that by the way, is why she’s called the iron lady, because it was intended as an insult that prescription, it was given her by a Russian communist red army newspaper. Which was teasing her in a sexist way. It said, you know, think Germany had an iron shops that are in business in Bismarck. She thinks she could be an iron lady.
[00:36:50] Ha ha. And you know, no lady can be iron. And she immediately made a speech saying, I stand before you in my red, she phoned gun with my head, gently [00:37:00] waves, the lady of the Western world. And I’m happy to be called that if that means I stand up for our beliefs against those of communism. And so she knew how to turn.
[00:37:10] The insult into the compliments and it was this sort of almost aggressive way of dealing with things, or certainly very front footed way of dealing with things which made a great difference to the affairs of the world. In
[00:37:23] GR: 1988 in the summer, a chance to travel to Oxford university with a delegation from the university of Virginia to talk about education reform.
[00:37:33] And naturally of course, we talked about some of the reforms that she made when she was in office a month ago. I had a chance to return to England this time to the university of Birmingham. To again, talk to scholars and others about education between the time that she was in office until the time that we’re in right now, how much of her philosophy or bachelorism has relates to education and its relationship to the economy, to jobs and to [00:38:00] making England stronger are still in place now.
[00:38:03] And are there some lessons others around the world can learn from that?
[00:38:06] Charles: Well, it’s been a story of success and failure. She was not fundamentally able to alter many of the, I would say rather bad systems of state education, national education paid for by the state in Britain. The fundamental structure remained the same, but she was able to introduce higher standards of curriculum that she was able to introduce.
[00:38:31] More parental choice. And most importantly she introduced the idea that new schools could start, could generate themselves rather than having, just to be invented by government. And the bad schools could fail and clear. And so we have what we call the academy program. And this means that schools have much more management or their budgets, and they used to have a much more pride in themselves and much more capacity to organize as academy trusts with more than one school in each trust.[00:39:00]
[00:39:00] So you’re getting the sense, that’s a reality of standards and choice is there in the system and that tends to affect what people learn. So. There would be a more rigorous learning that there would have been in those days. And therefore a better preparation for a modern economy and way of life.
[00:39:17] However, I wouldn’t want to exaggerate these achievements because I think fundamentally the British educational system remains controlled by the left and actually in recent years, in many ways, the standards. Declined as the left has become more militant. And that’s particularly happened in our universities as I think it has in the United States.
[00:39:35] So we had getting a big standard, this you all over again. This is how it didn’t always prevail, particularly in social questions. And so not all of her legacy is in place right now, but what is in place, I think is the idea about what this all to be, she can be invoked in order to find out what was said, what was argued, what was done and try it.
[00:39:55] Push that in a new era. And I would say that’s also true in, [00:40:00] well, the fast, because now we’ve got back in a weird situation to the cold war It’s no longer about Soviet communism, but it’s certainly about Russian power and dictatorship and so on and aggression. And how she behaves in relation to that is relevant and there ought to be more attention to it.
[00:40:15] Now in this terrible situation.
[00:40:17] GR: You know what I heard you say? Or the term, the iron lady, and it was used to. Denigrate her. And she ended up adopting that term so much of what she also had to deal with was driven by gender bias and other dynamics when she was in power. There were few women in the UK on the continent, even in the us, in positions of power today in Europe and the United States, more women in power are there some lessons that women, as well as men who were working under the leadership of women can learn from her.
[00:40:48] Style in terms of leadership, diplomacy, and vision.
[00:40:53] Charles: Yeah, I mean, the style is very different today, but first of all, the fact that she achieved this dominance, which was total dominance of the [00:41:00] British political scene for more than 10 years was very important, particularly as it was so innovative.
[00:41:05] Also I think she had an interesting take on this. Women employees policies would agree with, but I think it was very challenging and successful. She said to herself, she didn’t I to say this in public much in order for women to win, they need to capture the citizens that men really think their own.
[00:41:24] So she thought it was not a good idea , for women politicians to talk so much about what are traditionally called women’s issues. Health, let’s say she understood of course the importance of health, but she knew that men were not so interested in that she thought the thing to do where you really win is if you can capture what men care about, what do men care about in politics?
[00:41:43] If they care about war and money and international relations and diplomacy. And so she said her mind above all to conquer those subjects, herself economic policy, cold war policy, and defense policy. And [00:42:00] international relations such as the European community and global relations. And once you do that, you’ve really proved that women can do it.
[00:42:09] And the men are sort of slightly put to flight. and I think she did show that, and it says as a source of anything you can do, I can do better aspects of all of this, which as many as a huge difference to the world. success of Z generations of women, many of whom will not agree with Mrs.
[00:42:26] Thatcher’s actual politics, but will be most interested in her example. Thank you. Well, Lord, more would love for
[00:42:34] GR: you to read a passage of your choice.
[00:42:38] Charles: Yes. Thank you. A word of explanation is required because most of the words in this paragraph. Actually all the words of president Reagan, but I’m reading them out because of the context 40 years ago this year the full cleanse war took place when Argentina captured Portuguese territory, the Falkland islands invaded them and an incredible feat of arms Mrs.
[00:42:58] Thatcher and the British [00:43:00] forces recovered them. 8,000 miles away off the coast of south America. Amazing military feat and political achievement. In that she had quite a difficult time with United States because United States naturally did not want a war in the American continent. But in the end, her friendship with president Reagan prevails and so great with her success, there’s all these attempts to bring about sort of United nations peace plans and things didn’t happen.
[00:43:26] And there was total victory for America. And at this time happily coincided for her with president Reagan, having a state visit to. And visiting the queen. And of course there’s a team. This is Thatcher. And he made the speech in the houses of parliament, where he very kindly from her point of view, use the full example to meet the big play he was making about the nature of the cold war struggle, the Argentina.
[00:43:52] And Falklands, we’re not strictly speaking about the cold war, but they shared the capacities of the Alliance and of. British determination. And so [00:44:00] he made this little speech and I’ll read you a little bit about , just one paragraph which became an important part of the big message, the global message that Reagan and Thatcher we’re giving and this is, what it said.
[00:44:12] The Reagan visit to Britain began on Monday the 7th of June. So it was no whisper of disagreements over. The following day, the president’s addressed MPs and peers in the world gallery the houses of parliament. It was a major set piece speech making much more explicit it’s in the context of the Soviet repression of Poland, where martial law had been declared the previous December, his belief that the west could and should win the cold war freedom.
[00:44:38] He declared in a passage, which he wrote into the speech. Against the advice of the state department Reagan made the Falklands positive. Here’s why the theme, and these are his words on distant islands in the south Atlantic young men are fighting for Britain and yes, voices have been raised, protesting the sacrifice for lumps of broken earth so [00:45:00] far away.
[00:45:00] But those young men aren’t fighting for real estate. They fight for a cause for the beliefs that armed aggression must not be allowed to succeed. The people must participate in the decisions of government. The decisions of government made under the rule of law. If that had been a support for that principle some 45 years ago, perhaps our generation wouldn’t have suffered the bloodletting of world war two.
[00:45:24] And then I say, this was the only part of his speech, which attracted applause as British troops prepared for the final assault. Mrs. Thatcher could not have asked for clearer public support. And I would just add to that as the person referred back to the second world war 45 years earlier, 45 years on, I think we can very much apply these words to the situation with Ukraine.
[00:45:47] GR: We’re Lord Moore. Thank you so much for spending time with us today. Thank you for sharing, not only your scholarship with your insight on her as a person, as a politician, as a visionary at a time in world [00:46:00] history, where we should be concerned less with the right and the left, as much as doing the right thing to make sure we leave our.
[00:46:06] children and families a better world your work and your words have been very helpful to this conversation. You also mentioned you have work coming out soon about Reagan and Thatcher. And so please keep us abreast of that. Work would love to have a conversation with you at a later date about that as
[00:46:22] Charles: well.
[00:46:23] I’d love to do that, and I’m very grateful. It’s been a great pleasure talking to you. Take care. Thank you.[00:47:00]
[00:47:47] Cara: And as always Learning Curve listeners, we close it out with our Tweet of the Week. This one from EdWeek Tweeted on March 14th, school districts risks, losing superintendent talent and bypassing promising [00:48:00] future leaders. Here are some key reasons why, so this one friends, I mean, living here in Boston, it is hard.
[00:48:09] to ignore the idea that our Boston public schools in particular have just a really difficult time hanging on to superintendents. And it’s having a negative impact for a long time. Now it’s been having a negative impact on kids. So, I think that this is a really great read and some of the reasons they give is that superintendent turnover is only.
[00:48:33] Some settings that let’s not blame the pandemic for everything, because some superintendents are actually likely to stay, but that, and these are the important ones. So BPS mayor. Whew. I hope you were listening. Hiring great superintendent. Is getting more complex. And this article says at school boards will need to consider greener talent and probably opening up their wallets and [00:49:00] developing folks which, who in a big old school district that is not something to take lightly.
[00:49:05] Finally. The challenges faced by female superintendents has been placed into stark light, according to this article, by the pandemic so that, you know, we really need to think about diversity in the superintendents workforce and what that means, especially when we are hiring superintendents. It’s a really important job, Gerard.
[00:49:26] It’s about time. We started thinking more deeply. I think we talk a lot about teachers, but we’re not often talking about the people who are steering the ship right at the top of the district. Next week, we are going to be speaking with Arthur Levine. Many of you will know him. He is the president emeritus of Columbia’s teacher college.
[00:49:44] I bet he will have something to say about all of these things, but that more coming up Gerard until then. Please take care of yourself and I’ll be waiting for you’re always illuminating take on whatever stories [00:50:00] and commentary we have in the week ahead.
[00:50:02] GR: Sounds good. Take
[00:50:04] Cara: care. All right. Have a good one.
[00:50:05] Take care.[00:51:00]
Related Content
Ich Bin Ukrainer: European Nation Existential Fight Against Aggression
/in Featured, Podcast Hubwonk /by Editorial StaffHubwonk host Joe Selvaggi talks with former CEO of Kyiv Post and senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War Nataliya Bugayova about her research on the rise of Vladimir Putin and how it can inform understanding of the Russian invasion, particularly when viewed through the eyes of Ukrainians.
Guest:
WATCH:
Get new episodes of Hubwonk in your inbox!
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
Joe Selvaggi:
This is Hubwonk. I’m Joe Selvaggi.
Joe Selvaggi:
Welcome to Hubwonk, a podcast of Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston. The eyes of the world have turned to Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine, where for the first time, since the second world war a sovereign European country is facing an existential threat from an advancing army. The Russian leaders, Vladimir Putin characterized it as a military action necessary to rescue fellow Russians from an oppressive fascist dictatorship. The Ukrainians themselves led by their charismatic president. Volodymyr Zelensky have defied this narrative by both mounting armed and civilian resistance, and also waging and winning the public opinion campaign for support from the United States and Europe in an epic struggle to defend its right to sovereignty over the might of a former superpower. The Ukrainian people have accepted the mantle of frontline combatants, defending freedom and the international rule of law, but it prevail over a determined aggressor with ambitions to return Russia, to its former Soviet prominence.
Joe Selvaggi:
And what could those of us who look on in horror do to help them in their struggle? My guest today is senior fellow from the Institute for the study of war Nataliya Bugayova where she leads the Russia and Ukraine portfolio. Her work focuses on the Kremlin’s foreign policy decision making and ongoing global campaigns. Her research paper entitled how we got here with Russia. The Kremlin’s worldview written in 2019 is a chillingly precedent analysis of president Putin’s ambitions to ive the humiliation of the fall of the Soviet union and lead Russia back to its role as rival to the us and the west. Miss Bugayova will share with us how the themes in her research should inform our understanding of this war and guide our response. She’ll also share with us, her experience of having her country attack and trying to help friends and family survive the onslaught. When I return, I’ll be joined by Institute for the study of war senior fellow Natalia Bugayova. All right, we’re back. This is Hubwonk I’m Joe Selvaggi, and I’m now pleased to be joined by national security fellow for the Institute for the study of war. Nataliya Bugayova. Welcome to Hubwonk, Natalia Bugayova.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Thank you. Great to be here
Joe Selvaggi:
Now, before we dive into the details of our our discussion of the, which is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia you’ve had a long journey to get to the, the Institute for the study of war. In fact, we knew each other back in 2012 at, at Harvard Kennedy school. But for our listeners, take us through that journey. How did you go from a Ukrainian citizen all the way over to the United States to to the study of war?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Absolutely. so I’m originally from Ukraine from Eastern Ukraine and town called. I came to us first as an exchange student then returned to Ukraine where I studied in college and worked in KF. Then I came back to the us for grad school at HKS where we’ve met then returned to Ukraine again shortly before the Euro revolution of 2013, 2014. And it was truly a privilege to be a part of those events and help with the reform efforts first working for the ministry of economy, and then becoming the CEO of ke of post, which was Ukraine’s English language, independent publication at the time. And then I moved back to the us in thousand 16 and had been working at the Institute for the study of war in very roles. One of which was leading Russia and Ukraine research program. I remained national security file S w and work at a technology company at my day job. And so I have been working in Russia since 2014 and various roles including in the field of open source intelligence and military analysis.
Joe Selvaggi:
So before we get it into that analysis you say your hometown is in Eastern Ukraine. It’s a very difficult place to live. I hope your your family and friends have found safety there.
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, thank you for asking. I was able to evacuate my grandparents. One of whom is disabled and my mom who are now in Europe but other members of my family are in Ukraine and some of them are still in, which is now experiencing heavy Shein by the Russian forces.
Joe Selvaggi:
I’m sorry to hear that. And I, I wish them well. Now I thought your at piece for the Institute for the study of war offered a, a superb understanding of how we got here with Putin. You know, he is a man who lives through the collapse of the Soviet union. And that I think helps inform our understanding of who this man is. I don’t wanna oversimplify the thesis of your work, how we got here with Russia. But by my reading I’m gonna, I’m gonna paraphrase and then ask you to embellish a little on this. I would say Putin’s view is is a deep resentment in the Russian loss of stature after the fall of the, of the Soviet union. He had a, has a nostalgia re return that the power of that empire, if you will. And he sees the west as an obstacle to that return to greatness and, and, and resents the us and, and the west for that take us through the thesis of your research and, and, and it, it, it more or less shows an evolution from a fairly friendly post follow the Berlin wall, Russia, to where we are now with a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Take us through that arc of how we got here.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Sure. Look, I think Putin’s objectives have not really changed for years. They’ve always been the preservation of his regime efforts to restate Russia as a global and great power regain dominant influence over the former Soviets states and can us and neutralized NATO, I think regaining control over Ukraine remained a consistent goal for him for many years. And his intent when it comes to Ukraine is really independent of the west. And I think it’s a really key point. Us actions and NATO actions might have accelerated or dampen the Kremlin actions in some cases, but again, his goals Putins goals remain the same. And in fact, it’s really key to remember that the efforts to reintegrate. So, so that space have actually started even before Putin. It was president Yeltsin that who already adopted more assertive national security concept in 97, which include more paternalistic policy toward the forms of its states. So when it comes to Ukraine, you know, Putin tried to regain dominant influence through many means. First by trying to install political puppets, then through military intervention in 2014, and then through may any attempts to manipulate both Ukraine and the west into giving up Ukraine sovereignty essentially for the past eight years. And none of those efforts really worked. So put in kind of resorted to the last stool he had left from probably his perspective, which is a full, full on military offensive that he has launched last month.
Joe Selvaggi:
Oh, sorry. I wanted to, excuse me. I just wanted to get to the first point you made in that, that response, which is I think addressing some level of narrative here in the us that this rationale for this invasion of Ukraine was somehow precipitated by let’s say the accretion of states into NATO or the EU, in other words, as a response to what he saw was a slow threat to throw growing and, and ever closer threat from, from NATO or the us, you’re saying no independent of our act or NATOs actions or these actions Russia and Putin had designed on influencing neighbor states all along.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Correct. I do think that Western actions, once again served as an accelerator or, or Deener in some cases, but really the intent has the, and consistent for years. And I think it’s also really important to, to say that, you know, there was a brief period of Nonas assert foreign policy only for a few years in 1990s which I think many in the us believed have become the new norm, but in my assessment it was an anomaly because it was actually Ys Wright who reversed to, to the course of trying to be more istic towards the forms of its states already in late nineties. And couldn’t continued that trend in really award and in action for the next 20 years.
Joe Selvaggi:
Well, another simultaneous trend were those former Soviet states who I’d like to hear your opinion on that decided to look westward and, and either join EU or NATO. I don’t know what the count is. I believe eight or nine states that had been a Soviet satellite states now are members of NATO. Forgive me if this is a a naive question, why wouldn’t Russia be enticed to join the west, at least at some level rather than position itself, as in, in clear opposition,
Nataliya Bugayova:
The, the point about states joining the west and Russia’s argument about the fear of influence, right. That it deserves. First I was just like, would like to point out that I think this, this argument is inde defensible in many ways. You know, first the world, including Russia recognized Ukraine’s independence and independence of many former Soviet states in 1991. And no independent state should need to justify its existence. It’s foreign policy ambition, no matter how big or small it is. And you know, I think that’s point number one, point number two look, it was Russia’s and the Kremlin’s choice first and foremost to do so in part, because pus number one goal is preservation of his regime. And a lot of the I think Western values and rules are antithetical to his efforts to preserve his regime, which he does through Corion corruption and broadly authoritarian methods. So I think that’s actually the core reason why Russia, despite perhaps some of its ambitions to join the west has not because the model is antithetical to Kremlin’s model of regime preservation.
Joe Selvaggi:
So, so let’s focus now on your country, Ukraine which ha hasn’t joined the EU hasn’t joined NATO but clearly has gone from, let’s say a country, largely sympathetic to Russia and being a partner or a an ally of Russia to where we see now the, the brave of Vladimir Zelensky clearly with a Western focus, one who seems to aspire to the freedom and, and and the values of the west. How did we get from a, a country that was largely Russian, like to one that seems to be leaning strongly westward?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Sure. Look, I think Ukraine’s, and Russia’s path has started to diverge actually shortly after the Soviet union collapse and divide has never been actually about ethnicity and language. And I can tell you that as a, you know, originally Russian speaking Ukrainian the core divide has been always about the way of life. And the origin revolution off to south and four was the first clear indication that Ukraine went, did to evolve, to be the country with rights and rules. And the 2014 revolution was of course the pivotal moment. And again, the choice was not primarily about the west or the east. It was about whether to become a police state like Russia or not. And may in Ukraine made that choice in 2014 and, and some, you know, paid the ultimate price. And I was part of the events on, you know, on neuro down in thousand 14. And it’s worth noting that Ukraine has been the only country in the form of its space that has had legitimate con consecutive presidential elections, and the only country that had free media, no matter how limited but nevertheless free and, you know, no matter the issues. And of course the known issue with the corruption. I think the trajectory has been for years much before Lansky kind of toward a free year or state.
Joe Selvaggi:
Now you, you mentioned so that, that it’s this divide dates back to the fall of the Soviet union. And it’s a, it’s a, it’s a argument of a difference between in values or aspirations for one’s country rule of law. Now you, you made reference to, I, I believe it’s called the Euro Maden, a revolution in Ukraine and Russia did not sit by idly and, and watch this happen. In fact, of course the Russia did invade portions of Ukraine back in 2014, say more about what you think the motive was for that. Was that something as a, as a sort of a, a Sabre rattling, or was this a a long slow design on actually taking over Ukraine in the long run?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah. Great question. Look, I think first Ukraine’s freedom aspirations that were expressed very clearly in 2014, the it pose a threat from Putin’s perspective to Russian his regime precisely because the democratic model in the former Soviet its space can both, you know, endanger Putin’s regime, but show in Russian’s an alternative, but also in danger Putins project to integrate the other states in the forms of its space into kind of Russia dominated frameworks. I think in my assessment least was planned long before 2015, given the speed with which was, it was executed. I putting use the opportune moment essentially when there was a weakness in Ukrainian governance after shortly after the Euro revolution to both cease crime and launch military invasion in DOAs, I think it’s also were noting that again, as in many cases, the goal us to control Ukraine and to control its decision making. What Russia tried to do for the subsequent eight years is to use the illegal self reclaimed, you know, DNR and LR republics in Eastern Ukraine, and try to insert them in Ukrainian governance system with the, with no success. So once again the goal always been and always remained control and in 2014, Russia saw an opportunity to go for portions of Ukraine, essentially militarily, I think again, CIA was planned long before 2014.
Joe Selvaggi:
So okay. The it’s now that we’ve got a, a good history lesson up to current times now, of course we have to talk about a a war. Now Ukraine is roughly the size of Texas, an enormous country with 44 million inhabitants. One does not need to be a a student of the study of war to know that to quell a, a population of that size you would need at a substantial force as one who studies war it seems that that that force was woefully inadequate for the job. Is this mistake attributable to the idea that Putin had perhaps thought Ukraine would be let’s say less resistant to deliberate invasion.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah, great question. I mean, Putin has made several substantial miscalculation in his war effort and, you know, while he will and can recalibrate, I think several issues cannot be quickly undressed. And one of those is that fact that currently yet get misunderstood Ukraine. I think Russia miscalculated local sentiment in 2014. When if you recall, Russia wanted to take six regions of Ukraine, at least in 2014 and managed to secure only two portions of two regions in part, because it had actually miscalculated loyalties on the ground resistance and the sentiment. And it seems that ye eight years after despite the fact that Ukraine has been openly building up its defenses with Western support, the Kremlin has seemed not to have learned that lesson and shown that it does not still MIS understand Ukraine’s military capability or popular sentiment, including what’s really important. And among Russian speaking population, because right now the military action is happening in law part in east and south of Ukraine. And I think in part because Putin and then Kremlin has always assigned very little agency to Ukraine, a classical I think Imperial or great power mistake. And I think it accounts for some of the miscalculation, I think in addition to that, it also, just to me, a bigger problem of analytical reporting chain within Kremlin that might be broken.
Joe Selvaggi:
So you, you had mentioned agency Ukraine has a considerable amount of agency here. They’re putting up a hell of a fight. As someone who’s become a world celebrity in this process has been the president Zelensky he’s winning the public opinion, battle hands down. He’s been, I suppose, compared to even a, a Winston Churchill for our time. Do you see the fight that the Ukrainians are putting up, particularly, as you say, it’s, it’s even the Russian speaking Eastern Ukrainians are putting up a hell of fight. Is this owed to his inspiration and leadership, you think any reasonable leader in that position w would, would still see and still be leading a, a a fiercely resistant Ukrainian population?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No. Great question. Look, I think he is doing a fantastic job. However, I think Ukrainians have well sort pass dependence on one leader and it’s really important to highlight. And you know, even during your, my Don revolution of 2014, there was no one leader on my Don. It was a lot of self organizing, self driven effort at the grassroots level. And similarly, when Russian forces lunch and intervention in south 14, Ukraine actually didn’t have military or army at that point practically. And it was a lot of just local volunteers who went to, to the front line and fought at the time when Ukraine even didn’t have a president. So I think w landscape without the fight will continue though. He’s certainly I think an inspiration figure for many in the world during this time.
Joe Selvaggi:
So let’s get into the on the ground. Again, you’re a student of the study of war. What’s the current military situation on the ground here on day 20.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Sure. A couple of quick points first, you know, put into original plan to seize Ukraine in a matter of days has failed. Russia has not established air or ground superiority yet. And this is despite billion dollars of investment, you know, years of military reform combat experience, Russia forces seem to be failing at basic operational art. I think Ukraine Ukraine’s military, but also the whole population, including once again, Russian speakers are fighting Russia. Wasn’t able to take a single major city for several days early in, in the war, but it has shifted its approach and is now essentially trying to inflict maximum costs in humanitarian costs and trying to level and bomb the city’s and such a level them to the ground. And we have many documented incidents of targeting civilians, and I think this is how Russia has continued to advance its ground forces very slowly, but under this umbrella of of an air campaign.
Joe Selvaggi:
So it seems like it’s screeching into something, a kind to a Stal mate. I’m not sure we’re there yet. It looks like Russia continues to, to advance albeit slowly. Where do you see this military campaign heading and what, what key events are you watching for?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, for sure. Look, the, the outcome is not written from my perspective, the whole country’s emerging to defend Ukraine on one side Russia on the other will likely regroup and renew its offensive. Pushing can throw more capability at Ukraine. And there is some capability that he still has in his escalation letter. Russia also has information dominance over Russia’s domestic information space, which allows it to spin the war in favorable light. However, there’s several challenges for the Kremlin, but also several risks for Ukraine that I’m watching, you know, first Kremlin means substantial miscalculation and, and its war effort and someone which can not be fixed quickly, like understanding Ukraine or, you know, Russian military struggling with basic operational art. I think putting also to risks by deploying significant portion of Russia’s ground forces, which he probably did not intend to use in full into Ukraine their massive logistical issues.
Nataliya Bugayova:
And I think the key question is can Russia establish reliable supply chains so far? It hasn’t, but that’s one thing. I think we’re watching and as food and stretches out further into Ukraine, the logistics will get harder. I think mobilization is also tricky for put in, in part, because I think he realized he doesn’t have his full base in line. We see Russia’s efforts to try to engage militaries of, you know, Ballo or calling for Syrians or today. There were some reports that unconfirmed that Russia is asking for Chinese aid in this fight, I think it’s in part actually sign of weakness and, and the fact that his efforts at home are not going well. I think two more things on Ukraine side that that we are watching that are really important first, you know, ki is Russia’s biggest effort and Ukraine’s main risk. It can change the trajectory of war, even though Russia taking ki will not end this war. I think second is also Russia’s efforts in the south of Ukraine where it had gained the most ground, even though slower than I think we forecasted but Russia’s efforts to gain foothold in the south and then, and circle Ukraine’s forces in the east is another thing that I’m watching
Joe Selvaggi:
The Ukraine is it seemed to do something done the impossible, which is unite all Americans behind a cause. And I’m sure our listeners are thinking right now, my gosh, you know, is there anything that could be done for this cause you had compiled a list of some of the things you recommend vetted, vetted organizations that are making a real contribution to Ukrainians cause. But for those listeners who have skills who have resources who perhaps even medical or military resources, what can our listeners do to help improve Ukraine’s likely positive outcome?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, absolutely. And I talk to a lot of my American friends and many have said that they felt hopeless in a way, but I think there are a lot of things that regular citizens and organizations can do. I’ll name just a couple first. I actually think it’s really important to maintain the issue in the news and maintain the spotlight of the issue and joining rallies calling representatives to demand military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine reading verified sources of information, and actually trying to reach out for those who have friends inside of Russia and balls and trying to break that blockade inform blockade. Andre is trying to keep, you know, its population in the dark is, is actually really important. I think, additionally look, this war will be in part determined by logistics and ability to send a humanitarian and military systems at scale is actually really, really critical Ukraine.
Nataliya Bugayova:
You know, armed forces are several thousands of people and then, you know, they’re supported by territorial defense and then they’re supported by the population. But if we have, you know, millions of people around the world supporting them, it actually gives Ukraine a chance. So humanitarian aid through organizations like Graza or Nova Ukraine and you can share the list of the vetted organization that I compiled is, is really important. And there are also already ways to send medical and other aid directly to Ukraine from in the US. Which, you know, now that some of the supply chains are, are established I think final one I mention is there’s a lot to do also for businesses and organizations from kind of walking the walk on the ESG and divesting from Russia, but also keeping a lot of businesses accountable especially those who operate in Russia, but separately just sending supplies to Ukraine at scale, again, it’s time for big moves. People there refugees and people inside of Ukraine, they need basic stuff, right? Mobility, vehicles, fuel pharmaceuticals how housing modular homes and things like that. So I think there are plenty of ways that people at individual and organizational level can support.
Joe Selvaggi:
Now, you study war, we established that. Let’s talk about a different topic which is peace. I know there’s been several attempts by both countries to discuss terms of ending the fighting in your view, knowing both sides as well as anyone what might be the terms under which both sides might be able to accept a truce or perhaps declare victory and end this?
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah, it’s a, it’s a challenging question in part, because there have been peace talks for the past eight years and Russia had many opportunities to establish peace and I just think peace was never a goal control, always been at the goal. The problem is the way that put in frame this invasion essentially stating that Ukraine is not a country and that he aims to, you know, with Russia’s false narrative, as well as the brutality of Kremlin’s military campaign in Ukraine and just horrific civilian target of civilians and the casualties and the humanitarian catastrophe that we are observing. Just make, I think peace talks very unlikely at this, at this point, at least precisely because Putin made it very clear that he will take nothing less than Ukraine sovereignty and Ukraine made it very clear that it would, it would not stop fighting. So I think at this point I do not see a plausible middle ground, but situation can change as a military situation on the ground evolves.
Joe Selvaggi:
It seems that again, Putin has staked his, I dare say his life, his reputation on this, on this war. He’s up for reelection in 2024, as someone who studies Russia and Putin and the dynamics in, in the Kremlin does this war at least as we can see it now improve or, or diminish his likelihood of being reelected if you can call it that within Russia.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Yeah. So, look, first of all, Ukraine is not the only issue at stake for putting in this war. His regime is and actually, so is the project to reintegrate. Former Soviet union states is on, on a line. You know, we see in Russia’s efforts to really pull in ball fully into this conflict. And Russia has regained control over Belarus over the past year, but still conventional be Russia forces have not materially entered the conflict and, you know, Kazakhstan refused to provide soldiers to Russia at least. So I think there’s many things that at stake for him, I think 20, 24, it’s too far away at this point to, to make that assessment just given how much you put on the line. I would also say that look you asked should not anticipate that Russia’s foreign policy will automatically change when Putin’s term ants, whatever that might be an under whatever circumstance that might happen. Unfortunately I think Putin approach will most likely outlast him at least partially. And that is by design.
Joe Selvaggi:
Oh, that’s unfortunate. Well I think we’re running out of time. I think we’ll have to leave it there. Where can our listeners find your work at the Institute for the study of war?
Nataliya Bugayova:
No, absolutely. I think rush team ATW is doing phenomenal work covering the conflict and publishing daily updates on Ukraine crisis and the map, and big shout out to my colleagues, Mason Clark and Joe and Catarina w and you can follow three of them on Twitter, but also just go into the understanding war.org for daily updates.
Joe Selvaggi:
Indeed, I’ve been following those and they’re quite informative. It’s, it’s terrifying, but it’s what, we’re what we’re living through right now. So I just want to say a big thank you for joining us in the middle of a war within your country with your family, your friends, your loved ones. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to join us here on Hubwonk. Thank you.
Nataliya Bugayova:
Thank you. And thanks for having me.
Joe Selvaggi:
This has been another episode of Hubwonk. If you enjoyed today’s episode, there are several ways to support the show. It would be easier for you and better for us. If you subscribe to hub won in your iTunes podcast, catcher, if you wanna help, make it easier for others to find Hubwonk, it would be great if you offer a five star rating or a favorable review, we’re always grateful. If you share Hubwonk with friends, if you have ideas or comments or suggestions for me for future episode topics, you’re welcome to email me hubwonk@pioneerinstitute.org. Please join me next week for a new episode of Hubwonk.
Related Posts: